Fair enough. I have seen in other posts that I am not the only person here who is able to discern these differences. As I said, I though referring to oneself as an “audioholic” meant these differences were clear & present.
I have doled out some advice to people looking for it, and I hope the advice I have given is in keeping with the general spirit of the forums. True enough, most people will not pick up on the differences, but it would seem odd to have pages dedicated to giving/receiving advice if only to reply with “buy what fits your budget”. People should at least be made aware there are other offerings, audition, and decide for themselves if there really is (or isn’t) enough difference to take the step up.
I do appreciate your posts and I am sure many others do as well despite the fact that we do poke fun at each others now and then and sometime we (me anyway) overdo it too.
That being said, I would like to make a few more points.
1. I have had listened to NAD, Rotel, Arcam receivers and amps and I don't find them sounding any different than the Japanese made models within the same price range. I do own a preamp and a couple of amps and I eventually settled on leaving my preamp for my two channel system only, after I was sure my Denon receiver was just as good. Obviously all these are my own subjective observations only and I know yours could be entirely different.
2. I have a good understanding of the electrical and electronic principles behind audio amplifiers. Amp designs do not require the application of electrical/electronic knowledge base beyond university first degree level. No rocket science is involved.
3. People know how to design and build linear audio amps with inaudible distortion for years. I can't see why NAD could make theirs sound better if they too, design and build their amps to amplify audio signals in the roughly 20 to 20,000 Hz range faithfully?
4. Nowadays it does not cost much to build good quality amplifiers. Just take a look of the price of pro amps as an example.
5. It seems to me that people tend to believe more expensive amps/receivers sound better. We typically see posts that claim NAD, ARCAM, ROTEL, B&K are better in sound quality even though they may be behind in features and CODECS. Coincidentally they are typically more expensive. They may be more expensive because their production costs are higher, but the higher costs could well be due mainly to their lower volume of sales.
6. I said I had not met a single person who could tell those receivers/amps (brands I mentioned) apart but I was referring to products based on class A/B design (most still are) of recent years only. I used to think different products sounded different in earlier years for whatever reasons. I do know people who feel the same way, yet we all still feel tube amps sound different, at least the entry level ones.
7. Output power matters if you need it but I believe there is no disagreement here. The amp has to be powerful enough to handle the loudspeakers regardless of their electrical characteristics. Other than that, amps amplify the signal faithfully and pass it on to the loudspeakers that ultimately reproduce the sound.
I am not trying to tell people not to buy high end gear. I just want to say that people could spend a fortune on high end gear only to find out they may not get that "better" they may be after. It may sound contradictory, but I always want to own at least a pair of used McIntosh preamp/amp for my two channel system even though I am quite certain that I will not be surprised by their sound quality as I am confident that they are designed to sound neutral as well. I like their look and, high end or not, they are affordable. To me, audiophiles (not that I am one) don't necessarily buy high end gear just because they believe they sound better.
