Amp pricing & diminishing returns / what's your take?

[highfihoney]

What brands do you consider High end? Just curious, because I've been to large concerts (250k+), in highend movie theaters, in University classrooms....and have seen Crown Amps in all of them, with others occasionally mixed in.
But then again, maybe you are just talking about high end amps for consumers, not at the professional quality level.

For me, I'd rather have a professional amp, then a consumer amp. The pro-level seems to be less $/watt, yet equal or better quality.

As for the thread topic, I buy used from friends, or ebay. on ebay under "musical instruments / amps / poweramps"

Reorx

its not what brands i consider to be high end,the audio industry has branded different manufacturers with lables of low end,midfi & high end, there are pro amps that are labled as high end but none were mentioned in any post here,i only responded about the amps that were mentioned in the post.

there are diminishing returns once you go past a certian point with all amplifiers but i try to point out to some of the newer guys that the point where the returns start to diminish isnt as low as many would have them believe.

the people who would have others believe that all amps sound & perform the same would also have others believe that a $200 behringer a500 will sound & perform as good as a $5,000 crown master reference amplifier & this is not the case.

take the crown master reference for an example,this is one of the best amplifiers ever made by any manufacturer,in order for an amplifier to be able to outperform the $5,000 master reference it takes alot of costly parts & engineering & the performance level gained will be much smaller than the differences in performance between the behringer a500 & the crown master reference.

the differences between the behringer a500 & the crown master reference are huge & come at a cost of $4,800,the differences between the crown master reference & my $18,000 mcintosh mc1201 monoblocks are much smaller & come at a price difference of $13,000,this is the law of diminishing returns for 2 channel stereo.

keep in mind that most of the differences are totally useless for home theater applications.

 

[Jack Hammer]

the people who would have others believe that all amps sound & perform the same would also have others believe that a $200 behringer a500 will sound & perform as good as a $5,000 crown master reference amplifier & this is not the case...
...the differences between the behringer a500 & the crown master reference are huge & come at a cost of $4,800.
keep in mind that most of the differences are totally useless for home theater applications.

So are you recommending one over the other for home theater usage? Or are you saying that most amps comparable to the a500 are more than enough for HT usage?

 

[mtrycrafts]

the people who would have others believe that all amps sound & perform the same

Pure fantasy. There are no such people. Please stop this silly generalizations.


would also have others believe that a $200 behringer a500 will sound & perform as good as a $5,000 crown master reference amplifier & this is not the case.

Well, yes, they will perform audibly the same within their design specs and you have no evidence to the contrary.




the differences between the behringer a500 & the crown master reference are huge

The only differences are what design limits of that A500 are exceeded by the Crown and is such excesses needed in your setup?

 

[mtrycrafts]

So are you recommending one over the other for home theater usage? Or are you saying that most amps comparable to the a500 are more than enough for HT usage?

In reality, a receiver most likely will be sufficient, unless you have a very demanding speaker, low impedance, low sensitivity, large acoustic space, distant listening position. For $180, the A500 is a bargain for its performance. All amps have limits. You need to match your needs to what is available.

 

[PENG]

From what I have read around here so far, very few people, if any, are saying that all amps sound the same. There are people who say the difference between amps are huge, others say the difference are inaudible, or hard to tell in a DBT, as long as the amps are used within their design limit. So in terms of the "differences", most are not arguing about their existence, just the extent, and/or the point of diminishing return. To me, there is one important variable, the ability to hear those differences varies among people. People have different talents, can we accept that?

 

[tbewick]

Hello PENG,

I can't really agree with what you say, as you seem to imply that the reason for the different opinions is because some people have more sensitive hearing. I would argue that it is more to do with bias.

To me, the whole argument is to do with the scientific method. Doing a proper scientific test, you would include a statistically significant number of people. Doing this, you could review research concerning human hearing and its variance in a population. Such research, for example, allows us to reach the conclusion that the 20 Hz to 20 kHz bandwidth is more than sufficient for accurate music reproduction for most people.

By simply making subjective comparisions between different units, the results are unreliable. It seems to me that a sizeable number of people think that hi-fi is somehow beyond the scope of scientific testing. It find this extremely hard to accept. The scientific method is good enough to eradicate smallpox, detect planets in orbit of stars light years away, and land men on the moon. Compared to these achievements, being able to scientifically measure the audible distortion of an audio amplifier really seems quite insignificant.

 

[highfihoney]

So are you recommending one over the other for home theater usage? Or are you saying that most amps comparable to the a500 are more than enough for HT usage?

hi jackhammer,i made a recomendation that was specific to the questions about the amps persall001 was asking about,my comments about pro amps & costs were to respond to the question about diminishing returns & where i have found costs to over take benifits & to answer another question posed to me about what i consider to be high end gear.

i excluded HT because i have not personally compared many amps for that type of use & rather than base any recomendation on something that i looked up on google i refrained from the subject .

it might be very well possible that the behringer a500 & amps that are like it are enough to put together a good surround sound system but for a great 2 channel rig they are easily beat.

 

[highfihoney]

the people who would have others believe that all amps sound & perform the same

Pure fantasy. There are no such people. Please stop this silly generalizations.

haha ,no offense intended but you have got to be kidding me

 

[majorloser]

Hello PENG,

I can't really agree with what you say, as you seem to imply that the reason for the different opinions is because some people have more sensitive hearing. I would argue that it is more to do with bias.

To me, the whole argument is to do with the scientific method. Doing a proper scientific test, you would include a statistically significant number of people. Doing this, you could review research concerning human hearing and its variance in a population. Such research, for example, allows us to reach the conclusion that the 20 Hz to 20 kHz bandwidth is more than sufficient for accurate music reproduction for most people.

By simply making subjective comparisions between different units, the results are unreliable. It seems to me that a sizeable number of people think that hi-fi is somehow beyond the scope of scientific testing. It find this extremely hard to accept. The scientific method is good enough to eradicate smallpox, detect planets in orbit of stars light years away, and land men on the moon. Compared to these achievements, being able to scientifically measure the audible distortion of an audio amplifier really seems quite insignificant.

The scientifically measurable differences between amplifier performances may be quite significant on paper, but to the human ear they are identical. The human species does not possess the sensitive hearing that many animals have. Our difference as a species is our ability to analyze and interpret what is heard. It is that interpretation that gets us into trouble.

Somebody stated earlier that a speaker is the transducer. The same can be said about the human ear. The very shape of an individual’s ear can change the ability receive sound. No two persons hear the same sound.

 

[agarwalro]

By simply making subjective comparisions between different units, the results are unreliable. It seems to me that a sizeable number of people think that hi-fi is somehow beyond the scope of scientific testing. It find this extremely hard to accept. The scientific method is good enough to eradicate smallpox, detect planets in orbit of stars light years away, and land men on the moon. Compared to these achievements, being able to scientifically measure the audible distortion of an audio amplifier really seems quite insignificant.

Well said. If you claim amp A is better than amp B, the prove it scientifically.

But like Majorloser said, if you be able to differenciate them sonically is another matter.

 

[mtrycrafts]

To me, there is one important variable, the ability to hear those differences varies among people. People have different talents, can we accept that?

Yes, people have different acuity. But, JNd thresholds were established with the better performers And, no matter how keen ones hearing is, a sighted comparison is unreliable. They could certainly be correct in their observations but we just wouldn't reliably know it for sure

 

[mtrycrafts]

By simply making subjective comparisions between different units, the results are unreliable. It seems to me that a sizeable number of people think that hi-fi is somehow beyond the scope of scientific testing. It find this extremely hard to accept. The scientific method is good enough to eradicate smallpox, detect planets in orbit of stars light years away, and land men on the moon. Compared to these achievements, being able to scientifically measure the audible distortion of an audio amplifier really seems quite insignificant.

Thank you

But audio is so complex, much more so than the transmission of RF and we have infinite hearing capacity, it seems, that smallpox, astronomy, etc, is a cake walk

Oh, that moon landing. Are we sure we landed and not a hoax? LOL

Wed sites are trying to refute the landings

http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/tv/foxapollo.html

 

[mtrycrafts]

The human species does not possess the sensitive hearing that many animals have.

Reading some posts would lead you to believe otherwise


Our difference as a species is our ability to analyze and interpret what is heard.


Yes, we are fortunate to have that great hard drive up there to learn and recall.

It is that interpretation that gets us into trouble.

Yep. blame that super computer up there too

 

[tbewick]

Earlier on, I think that someone suggested that a better amplifier would sound more dynamic.

I'd thought I'd throw this diagram in from Practial Hi-Fi Sound, R. Driscoll, Hamlyn, 1980, page 68. I know it's out-of-date, but I think that even now, a high-quality hi-fi system will have its performance limited by the loudspeaker.

 

[mtrycrafts]

Earlier on, I think that someone suggested that a better amplifier would sound more dynamic.

I'd thought I'd throw this diagram in from Practial Hi-Fi Sound, R. Driscoll, Hamlyn, 1980, page 68. I know it's out-of-date, but I think that even now, a high-quality hi-fi system will have its performance limited by the loudspeaker.

Yes, very interesting. Amps after all are in the domain of electrical signals, able to change very small amounts, down to micro volts or less, move at the speed of light, at least close enough- all I need is jneutron telling me it is .5 light speed

Speakers are mechanical devices trying to respond to electrical signals. That is the weak link, period. That is where we should spend the discussions, I think, but then, I'd have nothing much to comment

 

[mtrycrafts]

haha ,no offense intended but you have got to be kidding me

I am still exchanging with you, so there is no offense

Kidding? Trying not to and hopefully you would know when I am

That A500 would perform as well as the next one, output impedance could change the circumstances some, to its design limits. But, only a DBt will settle the issues, one that can be replicated though

 

[PENG]

Hello PENG,

I can't really agree with what you say, as you seem to imply that the reason for the different opinions is because some people have more sensitive hearing. I would argue that it is more to do with bias.

Thank you for using the word "seem". No, I did not mean to imply that at all. I think most people can hear the difference between a $200 receiver and a $2000 amp but very few can hear the minute difference in sound characteristics/quality between a $3000 amp and a $6000 amp, e.g. Bryston vs Classe. I do believe those few people have a different sense, not necessary more acute, of hearing, who simply can pick out the subtle differences that most people cannot.

That said, there are also those would say the Bryston is bright and the Classe is dark/warm and that the difference is obvious, or even "huge", but I bet they will fail a DBT. I mean a DBT that only call for level matching and using amps with comparable power output. Those who claim there are huge difference in sound characteristics/quality between high quality (again use $2,000 or higher as price point) amps by different manufacturers, are probably exaggerating, or bias as you said.

 

[majorloser]

I do believe those few people have a different sense, not necessary more acute, of hearing, who simply can pick out the subtle differences that most people cannot.

Yeah, it's called their wallet. The "all mighty dollar" says it must sound better.

 

[tbewick]

The link you gave mtrycrafts was pretty thorough. There's quite a famous TV BBC programme here in the UK, The Sky At Night, which had a brief discussion of the moon landing a few years ago. One of the things that you can do is to get a telescope and see markings made on the lunar surface by the moon landing. They showed a picture of this on the programme. It doesn't look very impressive, just a few marks on the lunar surface, but it is direct evidence.

I'm surprised that the Fox programme didn't mention the picture where it looks like there's a number on a crater. According to the Sky At Night, this was caused by some dirt/dust getting on the film when it was developed.

 

[mtrycrafts]

The link you gave mtrycrafts was pretty thorough. .

Which link, where? I must have missed it with all these threads

If it is about that moon landing business. there was a web site and rebuttal of claims that it was a hoax
I suppose with the powerful telescopes, we could see the lunar leftovers up there.