Group: rec.audio.high-end
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Looking for a new power amp
Unfortunately, my McIntosh2500 power amp was turned into a paperweight
by a shipping company. So now I'd like to find something to replace
it. I'm using a McIntosh c-38 preamp, so I'd simply like to have some
opinions as to whether to use a tube power amp or a SS. My speakers
are a pair of Infinity RS!!'s with the emit tweeters. I don't need
anything near the power of the 2500 to get some decent sound out of
the them, so the question again becomes what might be substituted at a
reasonable cost. Thanks..Ted
by a shipping company. So now I'd like to find something to replace
it. I'm using a McIntosh c-38 preamp, so I'd simply like to have some
opinions as to whether to use a tube power amp or a SS. My speakers
are a pair of Infinity RS!!'s with the emit tweeters. I don't need
anything near the power of the 2500 to get some decent sound out of
the them, so the question again becomes what might be substituted at a
reasonable cost. Thanks..Ted
On Jan 28, 10:13 pm, Ted <the_busmas...@msn . com > wrote:
> Unfortunately, my McIntosh2500 power amp was turned into a paperweight
> by a shipping company. So now I'd like to find something to replace
> it. I'm using a McIntosh c-38 preamp, so I'd simply like to have some
> opinions as to whether to use a tube power amp or a SS. My speakers
> are a pair of Infinity RS!!'s with the emit tweeters. I don't need
> anything near the power of the 2500 to get some decent sound out of
> the them, so the question again becomes what might be substituted at a
> reasonable cost. Thanks..Ted
Unless it has been well-and-truly crushed, get it fixed. I am sure the
guys in Binghamton will help you out.
Apart from that, and assuming that "reasonable cost" is anything less
than $1500, and that you appear to like vintage equipment, try
negotiating with these people:
* w w w .filmco . net /AUDIO.htm
They do appear to have a 2500 in their inventory.
Then, and in no particular order:
HK Citation 16 (Brute-force SS amp)
Any of several Audio Research amps, tube, SS or hybrid
Any of several Conrad Johnson amps, tube or SS
Scott LK150 (PP6550 tube amp rated at 75wpc)
There are MANY others.
You will miss the power on those speakers. Really. I would suggest
that 75wpc would be your dead-minimum target power. I keep (amongst
several others) the first and last listed above and enjoy them
greatly.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
> Unfortunately, my McIntosh2500 power amp was turned into a paperweight
> by a shipping company. So now I'd like to find something to replace
> it. I'm using a McIntosh c-38 preamp, so I'd simply like to have some
> opinions as to whether to use a tube power amp or a SS. My speakers
> are a pair of Infinity RS!!'s with the emit tweeters. I don't need
> anything near the power of the 2500 to get some decent sound out of
> the them, so the question again becomes what might be substituted at a
> reasonable cost. Thanks..Ted
Unless it has been well-and-truly crushed, get it fixed. I am sure the
guys in Binghamton will help you out.
Apart from that, and assuming that "reasonable cost" is anything less
than $1500, and that you appear to like vintage equipment, try
negotiating with these people:
* w w w .filmco . net /AUDIO.htm
They do appear to have a 2500 in their inventory.
Then, and in no particular order:
HK Citation 16 (Brute-force SS amp)
Any of several Audio Research amps, tube, SS or hybrid
Any of several Conrad Johnson amps, tube or SS
Scott LK150 (PP6550 tube amp rated at 75wpc)
There are MANY others.
You will miss the power on those speakers. Really. I would suggest
that 75wpc would be your dead-minimum target power. I keep (amongst
several others) the first and last listed above and enjoy them
greatly.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Real good Brystons on eBay.
I have a 4B, waiting for a 2nd in the mail. Speakers sing with joy compared
to my previous power amp.
"Ted" <the_busmaster@msn . com > wrote in message
news:fnm5l50bvs@news1.newsguy . com ...
> Unfortunately, my McIntosh2500 power amp was turned into a paperweight
> by a shipping company. So now I'd like to find something to replace
> it. I'm using a McIntosh c-38 preamp, so I'd simply like to have some
> opinions as to whether to use a tube power amp or a SS. My speakers
> are a pair of Infinity RS!!'s with the emit tweeters. I don't need
> anything near the power of the 2500 to get some decent sound out of
> the them, so the question again becomes what might be substituted at a
> reasonable cost. Thanks..Ted
I have a 4B, waiting for a 2nd in the mail. Speakers sing with joy compared
to my previous power amp.
"Ted" <the_busmaster@msn . com > wrote in message
news:fnm5l50bvs@news1.newsguy . com ...
> Unfortunately, my McIntosh2500 power amp was turned into a paperweight
> by a shipping company. So now I'd like to find something to replace
> it. I'm using a McIntosh c-38 preamp, so I'd simply like to have some
> opinions as to whether to use a tube power amp or a SS. My speakers
> are a pair of Infinity RS!!'s with the emit tweeters. I don't need
> anything near the power of the 2500 to get some decent sound out of
> the them, so the question again becomes what might be substituted at a
> reasonable cost. Thanks..Ted
On Jan 28, 10:13 pm, Ted <the_busmas...@msn . com > wrote:
> Unfortunately, my McIntosh2500 power amp was turned into a paperweight
> by a shipping company. So now I'd like to find something to replace
> it. I'm using a McIntosh c-38 preamp, so I'd simply like to have some
> opinions as to whether to use a tube power amp or a SS. My speakers
> are a pair of Infinity RS!!'s with the emit tweeters. I don't need
> anything near the power of the 2500 to get some decent sound out of
> the them, so the question again becomes what might be substituted at a
> reasonable cost. Thanks..Ted
I already took it to Binghampton and the resulting repair bill was as
much as my mortgage!! I trust those guys so when they tell me the
repair bill is over 2000 then I know it's time to get something else.
I sold it for parts which is fine with me...thanks for your input.
> Unfortunately, my McIntosh2500 power amp was turned into a paperweight
> by a shipping company. So now I'd like to find something to replace
> it. I'm using a McIntosh c-38 preamp, so I'd simply like to have some
> opinions as to whether to use a tube power amp or a SS. My speakers
> are a pair of Infinity RS!!'s with the emit tweeters. I don't need
> anything near the power of the 2500 to get some decent sound out of
> the them, so the question again becomes what might be substituted at a
> reasonable cost. Thanks..Ted
I already took it to Binghampton and the resulting repair bill was as
much as my mortgage!! I trust those guys so when they tell me the
repair bill is over 2000 then I know it's time to get something else.
I sold it for parts which is fine with me...thanks for your input.
Ted wrote:
> On Jan 28, 10:13 pm, Ted <the_busmas...@msn . com > wrote:
>> Unfortunately, my McIntosh2500 power amp was turned into a paperweight
>> by a shipping company. So now I'd like to find something to replace
>> it. I'm using a McIntosh c-38 preamp, so I'd simply like to have some
>> opinions as to whether to use a tube power amp or a SS. My speakers
>> are a pair of Infinity RS!!'s with the emit tweeters. I don't need
>> anything near the power of the 2500 to get some decent sound out of
>> the them, so the question again becomes what might be substituted at a
>> reasonable cost. Thanks..Ted
>
> I already took it to Binghampton and the resulting repair bill was as
> much as my mortgage!! I trust those guys so when they tell me the
> repair bill is over 2000 then I know it's time to get something else.
> I sold it for parts which is fine with me...thanks for your input.
I'd cast about for another McIntosh with output transformers (autotransformers)
since they will react with your load somewhat differently than tube amps (with
and without feedback type) as well as solid state amps that have a low Z output
stage (the norm) since they will have a high DF.
Point is, that other type amps won't sound the same - assuming you are satisfied
with the sound you had. That's my view on this.
Fwiw, I think most Bryston amps sound hard, and brittle, but that is only my
opinion, others seem to think they sound fine.
The shipping company is responsible for replacing the amp, so they ought to be
compelled to pay for another one, no matter what.
_-_-bear
> On Jan 28, 10:13 pm, Ted <the_busmas...@msn . com > wrote:
>> Unfortunately, my McIntosh2500 power amp was turned into a paperweight
>> by a shipping company. So now I'd like to find something to replace
>> it. I'm using a McIntosh c-38 preamp, so I'd simply like to have some
>> opinions as to whether to use a tube power amp or a SS. My speakers
>> are a pair of Infinity RS!!'s with the emit tweeters. I don't need
>> anything near the power of the 2500 to get some decent sound out of
>> the them, so the question again becomes what might be substituted at a
>> reasonable cost. Thanks..Ted
>
> I already took it to Binghampton and the resulting repair bill was as
> much as my mortgage!! I trust those guys so when they tell me the
> repair bill is over 2000 then I know it's time to get something else.
> I sold it for parts which is fine with me...thanks for your input.
I'd cast about for another McIntosh with output transformers (autotransformers)
since they will react with your load somewhat differently than tube amps (with
and without feedback type) as well as solid state amps that have a low Z output
stage (the norm) since they will have a high DF.
Point is, that other type amps won't sound the same - assuming you are satisfied
with the sound you had. That's my view on this.
Fwiw, I think most Bryston amps sound hard, and brittle, but that is only my
opinion, others seem to think they sound fine.
The shipping company is responsible for replacing the amp, so they ought to be
compelled to pay for another one, no matter what.
_-_-bear
On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 07:53:38 -0800, bear wrote
(in article <fo23m202uch@news3.newsguy . com >):
> Ted wrote:
>> On Jan 28, 10:13 pm, Ted <the_busmas...@msn . com > wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, my McIntosh2500 power amp was turned into a paperweight
>>> by a shipping company. So now I'd like to find something to replace
>>> it. I'm using a McIntosh c-38 preamp, so I'd simply like to have some
>>> opinions as to whether to use a tube power amp or a SS. My speakers
>>> are a pair of Infinity RS!!'s with the emit tweeters. I don't need
>>> anything near the power of the 2500 to get some decent sound out of
>>> the them, so the question again becomes what might be substituted at a
>>> reasonable cost. Thanks..Ted
>>
>> I already took it to Binghampton and the resulting repair bill was as
>> much as my mortgage!! I trust those guys so when they tell me the
>> repair bill is over 2000 then I know it's time to get something else.
>> I sold it for parts which is fine with me...thanks for your input.
>
> I'd cast about for another McIntosh with output transformers
> (autotransformers)
> since they will react with your load somewhat differently than tube amps
> (with
> and without feedback type) as well as solid state amps that have a low Z
> output
> stage (the norm) since they will have a high DF.
>
> Point is, that other type amps won't sound the same - assuming you are
> satisfied
> with the sound you had. That's my view on this.
>
> Fwiw, I think most Bryston amps sound hard, and brittle, but that is only my
> opinion, others seem to think they sound fine.
That's interesting, I came to the same conclusion about Bryston amps. I also
find Krell amplifiers to be hard and cold and sterile. Of course, the regular
"eveything sounds the same" crew who post here will say that we're deluded
and that the Bryston, the Krell, A Classe, and a Panasonic A/V receiver
bought from Costco or Sam's Club for $399 all sound the same.
(in article <fo23m202uch@news3.newsguy . com >):
> Ted wrote:
>> On Jan 28, 10:13 pm, Ted <the_busmas...@msn . com > wrote:
>>> Unfortunately, my McIntosh2500 power amp was turned into a paperweight
>>> by a shipping company. So now I'd like to find something to replace
>>> it. I'm using a McIntosh c-38 preamp, so I'd simply like to have some
>>> opinions as to whether to use a tube power amp or a SS. My speakers
>>> are a pair of Infinity RS!!'s with the emit tweeters. I don't need
>>> anything near the power of the 2500 to get some decent sound out of
>>> the them, so the question again becomes what might be substituted at a
>>> reasonable cost. Thanks..Ted
>>
>> I already took it to Binghampton and the resulting repair bill was as
>> much as my mortgage!! I trust those guys so when they tell me the
>> repair bill is over 2000 then I know it's time to get something else.
>> I sold it for parts which is fine with me...thanks for your input.
>
> I'd cast about for another McIntosh with output transformers
> (autotransformers)
> since they will react with your load somewhat differently than tube amps
> (with
> and without feedback type) as well as solid state amps that have a low Z
> output
> stage (the norm) since they will have a high DF.
>
> Point is, that other type amps won't sound the same - assuming you are
> satisfied
> with the sound you had. That's my view on this.
>
> Fwiw, I think most Bryston amps sound hard, and brittle, but that is only my
> opinion, others seem to think they sound fine.
That's interesting, I came to the same conclusion about Bryston amps. I also
find Krell amplifiers to be hard and cold and sterile. Of course, the regular
"eveything sounds the same" crew who post here will say that we're deluded
and that the Bryston, the Krell, A Classe, and a Panasonic A/V receiver
bought from Costco or Sam's Club for $399 all sound the same.
On Feb 3, 10:31 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
> Of course, the regular
> "eveything sounds the same" crew who post here will say that we're deluded
> and that the Bryston, the Krell, A Classe, and a Panasonic A/V receiver
> bought from Costco or Sam's Club for $399 all sound the same.
For the first little bit or so, they do... it is what happens after
that that separates the wheat from the chaff.
All-and-at-the-same-time, the Panasonic and the Krell will sound
essentially identical when fed with 90%+ of the available signal out
there. And for those who listen almost exclusively to FM, that means
everything.
Further to that, I would suggest that most high-power, well-made, well-
designed amps (tube or solid-state) will be utterly merciless on poor
signal - that "brittleness" may be attributed to that lack of mercy.
(Some) tube amps tend to smudge things a bit, removing that
brittleness making a crappy signal sound not quite so crappy. Of
course, that also means that the signal is not precisely reproduced -
making the amp another "instrument" to be played. But that is the
user's choice and should not be discounted.
Just my experience.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
> Of course, the regular
> "eveything sounds the same" crew who post here will say that we're deluded
> and that the Bryston, the Krell, A Classe, and a Panasonic A/V receiver
> bought from Costco or Sam's Club for $399 all sound the same.
For the first little bit or so, they do... it is what happens after
that that separates the wheat from the chaff.
All-and-at-the-same-time, the Panasonic and the Krell will sound
essentially identical when fed with 90%+ of the available signal out
there. And for those who listen almost exclusively to FM, that means
everything.
Further to that, I would suggest that most high-power, well-made, well-
designed amps (tube or solid-state) will be utterly merciless on poor
signal - that "brittleness" may be attributed to that lack of mercy.
(Some) tube amps tend to smudge things a bit, removing that
brittleness making a crappy signal sound not quite so crappy. Of
course, that also means that the signal is not precisely reproduced -
making the amp another "instrument" to be played. But that is the
user's choice and should not be discounted.
Just my experience.
Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 10:22:26 -0800, Peter Wieck wrote
(in article <fo50p202848@news5.newsguy . com >):
> On Feb 3, 10:31 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>> Of course, the regular
>> "eveything sounds the same" crew who post here will say that we're deluded
>> and that the Bryston, the Krell, A Classe, and a Panasonic A/V receiver
>> bought from Costco or Sam's Club for $399 all sound the same.
>
> For the first little bit or so, they do... it is what happens after
> that that separates the wheat from the chaff.
>
> All-and-at-the-same-time, the Panasonic and the Krell will sound
> essentially identical when fed with 90%+ of the available signal out
> there. And for those who listen almost exclusively to FM, that means
> everything.
>
> Further to that, I would suggest that most high-power, well-made, well-
> designed amps (tube or solid-state) will be utterly merciless on poor
> signal - that "brittleness" may be attributed to that lack of mercy.
> (Some) tube amps tend to smudge things a bit, removing that
> brittleness making a crappy signal sound not quite so crappy. Of
> course, that also means that the signal is not precisely reproduced -
> making the amp another "instrument" to be played. But that is the
> user's choice and should not be discounted.
>
> Just my experience.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA
Oh, I don't discount it, in fact I love good tube amplifiers. I like what
they do to music - make it sound more like real, live music in my listening
room.
(in article <fo50p202848@news5.newsguy . com >):
> On Feb 3, 10:31 am, Sonnova <sonn...@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>> Of course, the regular
>> "eveything sounds the same" crew who post here will say that we're deluded
>> and that the Bryston, the Krell, A Classe, and a Panasonic A/V receiver
>> bought from Costco or Sam's Club for $399 all sound the same.
>
> For the first little bit or so, they do... it is what happens after
> that that separates the wheat from the chaff.
>
> All-and-at-the-same-time, the Panasonic and the Krell will sound
> essentially identical when fed with 90%+ of the available signal out
> there. And for those who listen almost exclusively to FM, that means
> everything.
>
> Further to that, I would suggest that most high-power, well-made, well-
> designed amps (tube or solid-state) will be utterly merciless on poor
> signal - that "brittleness" may be attributed to that lack of mercy.
> (Some) tube amps tend to smudge things a bit, removing that
> brittleness making a crappy signal sound not quite so crappy. Of
> course, that also means that the signal is not precisely reproduced -
> making the amp another "instrument" to be played. But that is the
> user's choice and should not be discounted.
>
> Just my experience.
>
> Peter Wieck
> Wyncote, PA
Oh, I don't discount it, in fact I love good tube amplifiers. I like what
they do to music - make it sound more like real, live music in my listening
room.
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
> Oh, I don't discount it, in fact I love good tube amplifiers. I like what
> they do to music - make it sound more like real, live music in my listening
> room.
You mean get the same distortion and on the edge feeling like the live
concert system with a suboptimal FOH mixer, really ugly room acustics
and speakers stressed to near death? ;-)
It's really a matter of what you want and what your taste is:
interpretation or reproduction. First might be good from the tube amps
(I can't really tell because I absolutely don't like how they soften the
signal and add non-existing warmth to the sound), second comes better
from the transistor amps.
And, in an optimal world, every amplifier should sound the same. It
should only amplify the existing signal not adding something to it.
Brystons are famous for "not adding" to the signal. But many people
don't like them as they really are merciless to any faulty signal or bad
speaker.
cug, likes reproduction
--
* w w w .event-s . net
> Oh, I don't discount it, in fact I love good tube amplifiers. I like what
> they do to music - make it sound more like real, live music in my listening
> room.
You mean get the same distortion and on the edge feeling like the live
concert system with a suboptimal FOH mixer, really ugly room acustics
and speakers stressed to near death? ;-)
It's really a matter of what you want and what your taste is:
interpretation or reproduction. First might be good from the tube amps
(I can't really tell because I absolutely don't like how they soften the
signal and add non-existing warmth to the sound), second comes better
from the transistor amps.
And, in an optimal world, every amplifier should sound the same. It
should only amplify the existing signal not adding something to it.
Brystons are famous for "not adding" to the signal. But many people
don't like them as they really are merciless to any faulty signal or bad
speaker.
cug, likes reproduction
--
* w w w .event-s . net
"Guido Neitzer" <guido.neitzer@web.de> wrote in message
news:fo645o010pv@news5.newsguy . com ...
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>
>> Oh, I don't discount it, in fact I love good tube amplifiers. I like what
>> they do to music - make it sound more like real, live music in my
>> listening
>> room.
>
> You mean get the same distortion and on the edge feeling like the live
> concert system with a suboptimal FOH mixer, really ugly room acustics
> and speakers stressed to near death? ;-)
>
> It's really a matter of what you want and what your taste is:
> interpretation or reproduction. First might be good from the tube amps
> (I can't really tell because I absolutely don't like how they soften the
> signal and add non-existing warmth to the sound), second comes better
> from the transistor amps.
>
> And, in an optimal world, every amplifier should sound the same. It
> should only amplify the existing signal not adding something to it.
> Brystons are famous for "not adding" to the signal. But many people
> don't like them as they really are merciless to any faulty signal or bad
> speaker.
>
Frankly the Brystons sound edgy on a wide variety of music and with a wide
variety of auxilliary and source components. I'm afraid this is a case
suggesting how the amp "should" sound to those who love measurements and
specs. To those who know the sound of live music, it is not a first class
reproducer.
news:fo645o010pv@news5.newsguy . com ...
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>
>> Oh, I don't discount it, in fact I love good tube amplifiers. I like what
>> they do to music - make it sound more like real, live music in my
>> listening
>> room.
>
> You mean get the same distortion and on the edge feeling like the live
> concert system with a suboptimal FOH mixer, really ugly room acustics
> and speakers stressed to near death? ;-)
>
> It's really a matter of what you want and what your taste is:
> interpretation or reproduction. First might be good from the tube amps
> (I can't really tell because I absolutely don't like how they soften the
> signal and add non-existing warmth to the sound), second comes better
> from the transistor amps.
>
> And, in an optimal world, every amplifier should sound the same. It
> should only amplify the existing signal not adding something to it.
> Brystons are famous for "not adding" to the signal. But many people
> don't like them as they really are merciless to any faulty signal or bad
> speaker.
>
Frankly the Brystons sound edgy on a wide variety of music and with a wide
variety of auxilliary and source components. I'm afraid this is a case
suggesting how the amp "should" sound to those who love measurements and
specs. To those who know the sound of live music, it is not a first class
reproducer.
On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 20:26:32 -0800, Guido Neitzer wrote
(in article <fo645o010pv@news5.newsguy . com >):
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>
>> Oh, I don't discount it, in fact I love good tube amplifiers. I like what
>> they do to music - make it sound more like real, live music in my listening
>> room.
>
> You mean get the same distortion and on the edge feeling like the live
> concert system with a suboptimal FOH mixer, really ugly room acustics
> and speakers stressed to near death? ;-)
No, I mean strings that sound like mass strings do in a good concert hall.
Woodwinds that have that warm, woody sound, brasses that bite realistically
and triangles that shimmer over the left side of the orchestra and float
above the sounstage. Call these euphonic colorations if you like, but many
highly touted SS amps sound cold and clinical, like listening to music in a
hospital operating room. I prefer the former, don't like the latter. BTW, I
record live music at least twice a week. I know what it sounds like and when
my audio system approaches it.
> It's really a matter of what you want and what your taste is:
> interpretation or reproduction.
Reproduction is best, but reproduction of the original performance, not of
the recording made of it. Also. absolute reproduction is not possible. You
said it yourself: "...really ugly room acoustics and speakers stressed to
near death..." So-called "Euphonic colorations" tend to fill-in the holes in
music reproduction, reduce listening fatigue, and make a stereo system sound
alive. Not a bad thing, all in all.
> First might be good from the tube amps
> (I can't really tell because I absolutely don't like how they soften the
> signal and add non-existing warmth to the sound)
Then you have heard bad tube amps. Good ones don't soften the signal, but
they might add warmth. Real music sounds warm and rich. Tubes do warm and
rich real well. They also render ambience more realistically.
, second comes better
> from the transistor amps.
If "reproduction" means cold, sterile, and thread-bare, I'll take
"interpretation", thank you!
>
> And, in an optimal world, every amplifier should sound the same.
In an optimal world, every amplifier would sound perfect and the recording
process would capture every facet and nuance of a performance adding nothing,
taking nothing away. But such equipment and art does not exist. We can get
closer, I'm sure, but most modern recording engineers have been so spoiled by
decades of multi-track and pop music production, that they have become lazy
and perfunctory, and many don't really even understand what it is that they
are trying to do.
> It should only amplify the existing signal not adding something to it.
> Brystons are famous for "not adding" to the signal. But many people
> don't like them as they really are merciless to any faulty signal or bad
> speaker.
They are fine if your idea of idea reproduction is to reproduce an orchestra
playing in an unheated igloo with the music stripped clean of all of it's
richness and warmth, realism and humanity. Me, I don't enjoy such a
presentation. I want the music to sound like it did when I recorded it, and
to me tubes, do that best.
(in article <fo645o010pv@news5.newsguy . com >):
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>
>> Oh, I don't discount it, in fact I love good tube amplifiers. I like what
>> they do to music - make it sound more like real, live music in my listening
>> room.
>
> You mean get the same distortion and on the edge feeling like the live
> concert system with a suboptimal FOH mixer, really ugly room acustics
> and speakers stressed to near death? ;-)
No, I mean strings that sound like mass strings do in a good concert hall.
Woodwinds that have that warm, woody sound, brasses that bite realistically
and triangles that shimmer over the left side of the orchestra and float
above the sounstage. Call these euphonic colorations if you like, but many
highly touted SS amps sound cold and clinical, like listening to music in a
hospital operating room. I prefer the former, don't like the latter. BTW, I
record live music at least twice a week. I know what it sounds like and when
my audio system approaches it.
> It's really a matter of what you want and what your taste is:
> interpretation or reproduction.
Reproduction is best, but reproduction of the original performance, not of
the recording made of it. Also. absolute reproduction is not possible. You
said it yourself: "...really ugly room acoustics and speakers stressed to
near death..." So-called "Euphonic colorations" tend to fill-in the holes in
music reproduction, reduce listening fatigue, and make a stereo system sound
alive. Not a bad thing, all in all.
> First might be good from the tube amps
> (I can't really tell because I absolutely don't like how they soften the
> signal and add non-existing warmth to the sound)
Then you have heard bad tube amps. Good ones don't soften the signal, but
they might add warmth. Real music sounds warm and rich. Tubes do warm and
rich real well. They also render ambience more realistically.
, second comes better
> from the transistor amps.
If "reproduction" means cold, sterile, and thread-bare, I'll take
"interpretation", thank you!
>
> And, in an optimal world, every amplifier should sound the same.
In an optimal world, every amplifier would sound perfect and the recording
process would capture every facet and nuance of a performance adding nothing,
taking nothing away. But such equipment and art does not exist. We can get
closer, I'm sure, but most modern recording engineers have been so spoiled by
decades of multi-track and pop music production, that they have become lazy
and perfunctory, and many don't really even understand what it is that they
are trying to do.
> It should only amplify the existing signal not adding something to it.
> Brystons are famous for "not adding" to the signal. But many people
> don't like them as they really are merciless to any faulty signal or bad
> speaker.
They are fine if your idea of idea reproduction is to reproduce an orchestra
playing in an unheated igloo with the music stripped clean of all of it's
richness and warmth, realism and humanity. Me, I don't enjoy such a
presentation. I want the music to sound like it did when I recorded it, and
to me tubes, do that best.
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
> Reproduction is best, but reproduction of the original performance, not of
> the recording made of it.
Ouch.
> Then you have heard bad tube amps.
No I didn't. But let's leave it that way. Any discussion about taste
between someone who doesn't like tube amps and someone who does is
doomed from the beginning.
> If "reproduction" means cold, sterile, and thread-bare, I'll take
> "interpretation", thank you!
No it doesn't. It only means, not adding something that isn't there. If
your recording is not warm when it should, your recording is bad, not
the amp.
And if you do live recording without the intention of "1:1 reproduction"
but always with your warming tube amp in the chain or memory, no wonder
that such recordings sound crappy on a good amp.
> In an optimal world, every amplifier would sound perfect and the recording
> process would capture every facet and nuance of a performance adding nothing,
> taking nothing away.
The problem is when the chain adds something that was different before.
And most (even the most expensive) tube amps do exactly that: adding
without knowing whether it should be there or not. No selectivity in a
dumb "machine".
> They are fine if your idea of idea reproduction is to reproduce an orchestra
> playing in an unheated igloo with the music stripped clean of all of it's
> richness and warmth, realism and humanity. Me, I don't enjoy such a
> presentation. I want the music to sound like it did when I recorded it, and
> to me tubes, do that best.
I can say here, that a tube amp is fine as long as you prefer listening
to dry and clear music warmed to a point of sillyness, surrounded by
heavy cussions, and without the original crisp.
So, stay away from quoting sales phrases from tube advertisment.
We can agree we have different tastes, but what I cannot agree on is
your argument, that an amplifier should add something that is not in the
recording. And amplifier is an amplifier, not an interpreter.
cug
--
* w w w .event-s . net
> Reproduction is best, but reproduction of the original performance, not of
> the recording made of it.
Ouch.
> Then you have heard bad tube amps.
No I didn't. But let's leave it that way. Any discussion about taste
between someone who doesn't like tube amps and someone who does is
doomed from the beginning.
> If "reproduction" means cold, sterile, and thread-bare, I'll take
> "interpretation", thank you!
No it doesn't. It only means, not adding something that isn't there. If
your recording is not warm when it should, your recording is bad, not
the amp.
And if you do live recording without the intention of "1:1 reproduction"
but always with your warming tube amp in the chain or memory, no wonder
that such recordings sound crappy on a good amp.
> In an optimal world, every amplifier would sound perfect and the recording
> process would capture every facet and nuance of a performance adding nothing,
> taking nothing away.
The problem is when the chain adds something that was different before.
And most (even the most expensive) tube amps do exactly that: adding
without knowing whether it should be there or not. No selectivity in a
dumb "machine".
> They are fine if your idea of idea reproduction is to reproduce an orchestra
> playing in an unheated igloo with the music stripped clean of all of it's
> richness and warmth, realism and humanity. Me, I don't enjoy such a
> presentation. I want the music to sound like it did when I recorded it, and
> to me tubes, do that best.
I can say here, that a tube amp is fine as long as you prefer listening
to dry and clear music warmed to a point of sillyness, surrounded by
heavy cussions, and without the original crisp.
So, stay away from quoting sales phrases from tube advertisment.
We can agree we have different tastes, but what I cannot agree on is
your argument, that an amplifier should add something that is not in the
recording. And amplifier is an amplifier, not an interpreter.
cug
--
* w w w .event-s . net
On Mon, 4 Feb 2008 19:19:57 -0800, Guido Neitzer wrote
(in article <fo8kkt014bk@news3.newsguy . com >):
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>
>> Reproduction is best, but reproduction of the original performance, not of
>> the recording made of it.
>
> Ouch.
>
>> Then you have heard bad tube amps.
>
> No I didn't. But let's leave it that way. Any discussion about taste
> between someone who doesn't like tube amps and someone who does is
> doomed from the beginning.
>
>> If "reproduction" means cold, sterile, and thread-bare, I'll take
>> "interpretation", thank you!
>
> No it doesn't. It only means, not adding something that isn't there. If
> your recording is not warm when it should, your recording is bad, not
> the amp.
>
> And if you do live recording without the intention of "1:1 reproduction"
> but always with your warming tube amp in the chain or memory, no wonder
> that such recordings sound crappy on a good amp.
I do recordings using the simplest setup possible. I use no EQ, no
compression of any kind and absolutely no signal processing. When I play back
my recordings, they sound like music and very much like they did in the hall
while I'm recording them. My intention is always to get the closest recording
that I can to the original sound of the ensemble being recorded. That's my
goal, and it would be useless to do anything else in my humble opinion.
>
>> In an optimal world, every amplifier would sound perfect and the recording
>> process would capture every facet and nuance of a performance adding
>> nothing,
>> taking nothing away.
>
> The problem is when the chain adds something that was different before.
> And most (even the most expensive) tube amps do exactly that: adding
> without knowing whether it should be there or not. No selectivity in a
> dumb "machine".
Frankly, I disagree. I think what is happening is that solid-state amps are
taking something away. Making the music sound artificial and too "clean".
Real music played in real space doesn't sound like that.
>
>> They are fine if your idea of idea reproduction is to reproduce an orchestra
>> playing in an unheated igloo with the music stripped clean of all of it's
>> richness and warmth, realism and humanity. Me, I don't enjoy such a
>> presentation. I want the music to sound like it did when I recorded it, and
>> to me tubes, do that best.
>
> I can say here, that a tube amp is fine as long as you prefer listening
> to dry and clear music warmed to a point of sillyness, surrounded by
> heavy cussions, and without the original crisp.
Wouldn't know because good tube amps (like my VTLs) don't do that.
>
> So, stay away from quoting sales phrases from tube advertisment.
Again, I wouldn't know. I've never seen anything I wrote, above quoted in any
tube advertisement.
>
> We can agree we have different tastes, but what I cannot agree on is
> your argument, that an amplifier should add something that is not in the
> recording. And amplifier is an amplifier, not an interpreter.
All I said is that a good tube amp sounds more like real music. Whether it
does that because it adds something, or because transistors take something
away, I do not know (I suspect the latter and for a number of technical
reasons). The Hi-Fi hobby is about the sound of real music played in real
space reproduced in the home. If the state of the art continues to miss that
goal, and if the reproduction chain needs a few crutches to produce that
aural illusion, then so be it.
(in article <fo8kkt014bk@news3.newsguy . com >):
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>
>> Reproduction is best, but reproduction of the original performance, not of
>> the recording made of it.
>
> Ouch.
>
>> Then you have heard bad tube amps.
>
> No I didn't. But let's leave it that way. Any discussion about taste
> between someone who doesn't like tube amps and someone who does is
> doomed from the beginning.
>
>> If "reproduction" means cold, sterile, and thread-bare, I'll take
>> "interpretation", thank you!
>
> No it doesn't. It only means, not adding something that isn't there. If
> your recording is not warm when it should, your recording is bad, not
> the amp.
>
> And if you do live recording without the intention of "1:1 reproduction"
> but always with your warming tube amp in the chain or memory, no wonder
> that such recordings sound crappy on a good amp.
I do recordings using the simplest setup possible. I use no EQ, no
compression of any kind and absolutely no signal processing. When I play back
my recordings, they sound like music and very much like they did in the hall
while I'm recording them. My intention is always to get the closest recording
that I can to the original sound of the ensemble being recorded. That's my
goal, and it would be useless to do anything else in my humble opinion.
>
>> In an optimal world, every amplifier would sound perfect and the recording
>> process would capture every facet and nuance of a performance adding
>> nothing,
>> taking nothing away.
>
> The problem is when the chain adds something that was different before.
> And most (even the most expensive) tube amps do exactly that: adding
> without knowing whether it should be there or not. No selectivity in a
> dumb "machine".
Frankly, I disagree. I think what is happening is that solid-state amps are
taking something away. Making the music sound artificial and too "clean".
Real music played in real space doesn't sound like that.
>
>> They are fine if your idea of idea reproduction is to reproduce an orchestra
>> playing in an unheated igloo with the music stripped clean of all of it's
>> richness and warmth, realism and humanity. Me, I don't enjoy such a
>> presentation. I want the music to sound like it did when I recorded it, and
>> to me tubes, do that best.
>
> I can say here, that a tube amp is fine as long as you prefer listening
> to dry and clear music warmed to a point of sillyness, surrounded by
> heavy cussions, and without the original crisp.
Wouldn't know because good tube amps (like my VTLs) don't do that.
>
> So, stay away from quoting sales phrases from tube advertisment.
Again, I wouldn't know. I've never seen anything I wrote, above quoted in any
tube advertisement.
>
> We can agree we have different tastes, but what I cannot agree on is
> your argument, that an amplifier should add something that is not in the
> recording. And amplifier is an amplifier, not an interpreter.
All I said is that a good tube amp sounds more like real music. Whether it
does that because it adds something, or because transistors take something
away, I do not know (I suspect the latter and for a number of technical
reasons). The Hi-Fi hobby is about the sound of real music played in real
space reproduced in the home. If the state of the art continues to miss that
goal, and if the reproduction chain needs a few crutches to produce that
aural illusion, then so be it.
Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
> My intention is always to get the closest recording that I can to the
> original sound of the ensemble being recorded. That's my goal, and it
> would be useless to do anything else in my humble opinion.
Noble intentions.
> Frankly, I disagree. I think what is happening is that solid-state amps are
> taking something away.
So we agree do disagree and that's about it.
> > I can say here, that a tube amp is fine as long as you prefer listening
> > to dry and clear music warmed to a point of sillyness, surrounded by
> > heavy cussions, and without the original crisp.
>
> Wouldn't know because good tube amps (like my VTLs) don't do that.
That's your point. My point is different, so what? You think I like
sterile sound and I think you like manicured sound.
cug
--
* w w w .event-s . net
> My intention is always to get the closest recording that I can to the
> original sound of the ensemble being recorded. That's my goal, and it
> would be useless to do anything else in my humble opinion.
Noble intentions.
> Frankly, I disagree. I think what is happening is that solid-state amps are
> taking something away.
So we agree do disagree and that's about it.
> > I can say here, that a tube amp is fine as long as you prefer listening
> > to dry and clear music warmed to a point of sillyness, surrounded by
> > heavy cussions, and without the original crisp.
>
> Wouldn't know because good tube amps (like my VTLs) don't do that.
That's your point. My point is different, so what? You think I like
sterile sound and I think you like manicured sound.
cug
--
* w w w .event-s . net
Guido Neitzer wrote:
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>
>> Oh, I don't discount it, in fact I love good tube amplifiers. I like what
>> they do to music - make it sound more like real, live music in my listening
>> room.
>
> You mean get the same distortion and on the edge feeling like the live
> concert system with a suboptimal FOH mixer, really ugly room acustics
> and speakers stressed to near death? ;-)
>
> It's really a matter of what you want and what your taste is:
> interpretation or reproduction. First might be good from the tube amps
> (I can't really tell because I absolutely don't like how they soften the
> signal and add non-existing warmth to the sound), second comes better
> from the transistor amps.
>
> And, in an optimal world, every amplifier should sound the same. It
> should only amplify the existing signal not adding something to it.
> Brystons are famous for "not adding" to the signal. But many people
> don't like them as they really are merciless to any faulty signal or bad
> speaker.
>
> cug, likes reproduction
>
Ummm... sorry to disagree with your assertion regarding the vernerable Bryston
and the venerable Krell amps.
Interestingly enough the earlier "classic" (can we call them that now?) versions
of both amplifiers - the ones that made them "famous" - had *identical*
topology! That means the same circuit.
Both brands were/are hardly free of distortion.
So, I'd not agree that they were "not adding" anything to the signal.
I'd also suggest you read what Dr. Earl Geddes found when he tested amplfiers
and the like WRT "distortion."
It's also novel and interesting that I keep citing Geddes, since he's about as
much of a rabid (my term here)"objectivist" in the world of audio engineering
research and application that one could possibly find!
What Bryston and Krell are now doing, I'm not 100% certain, I certainly hope
they've improved over the earlier dismal offerings. Just my opinion.
_-_-bear
> Sonnova <sonnova@audiosanatorium . com > wrote:
>
>> Oh, I don't discount it, in fact I love good tube amplifiers. I like what
>> they do to music - make it sound more like real, live music in my listening
>> room.
>
> You mean get the same distortion and on the edge feeling like the live
> concert system with a suboptimal FOH mixer, really ugly room acustics
> and speakers stressed to near death? ;-)
>
> It's really a matter of what you want and what your taste is:
> interpretation or reproduction. First might be good from the tube amps
> (I can't really tell because I absolutely don't like how they soften the
> signal and add non-existing warmth to the sound), second comes better
> from the transistor amps.
>
> And, in an optimal world, every amplifier should sound the same. It
> should only amplify the existing signal not adding something to it.
> Brystons are famous for "not adding" to the signal. But many people
> don't like them as they really are merciless to any faulty signal or bad
> speaker.
>
> cug, likes reproduction
>
Ummm... sorry to disagree with your assertion regarding the vernerable Bryston
and the venerable Krell amps.
Interestingly enough the earlier "classic" (can we call them that now?) versions
of both amplifiers - the ones that made them "famous" - had *identical*
topology! That means the same circuit.
Both brands were/are hardly free of distortion.
So, I'd not agree that they were "not adding" anything to the signal.
I'd also suggest you read what Dr. Earl Geddes found when he tested amplfiers
and the like WRT "distortion."
It's also novel and interesting that I keep citing Geddes, since he's about as
much of a rabid (my term here)"objectivist" in the world of audio engineering
research and application that one could possibly find!
What Bryston and Krell are now doing, I'm not 100% certain, I certainly hope
they've improved over the earlier dismal offerings. Just my opinion.
_-_-bear
