|
|
arcam advice please
"Trevor Wilson" wrote OK. My suspicion was that, for cost effectiveness, the pre section componentry and circuit might be common to most (if not all) of the range....? **Big mistake. Just listen to one of their HT recievers and compare it to one of Denon's standalone tuners and you'll see what I mean. The standalone tuners are very, very good indeed. WTF has that got to do with it? Gone are the days when manufactuers used common items in their products. I doubt it.... In fact, check the back panel of your 655 and see where it is manufactured. I KNOW that the 1500 originates from Japan. So what? You think the Chinese can't *manufacture* or summat?? I also know that the previous model used the Alps 'Blue Velvet' volume pot. And anyone who klnows these things, knows that they are a very transparent, long lasting, well matched pot. Standard carbon pots are something else entirely. Keep it real - I'm talking about a 200 quid amp here, not a 2,000 quid amp... **I believe that you will go out of your way to ensure that you never hear something truly special, if it contains transistors. I would (within reason) but you still haven't suggested one...?? OK, perhaps you could point me in the right direction, I have had various models of the following makes of SS amps (in no special order): Denon **From terrible to quite good. OK, I'll play! :-) Let me guess - the one I've got comes under the 'terrible' category....??? :-) Pioneer **From terrible to passable. My current one is a SA-510 - does just fine on the computer... Cambridge Audio **Passable. Mine was a P50 back in the 70s (and an A1 Mk III a few years ago) - I liked them. Sony **From terrible to quite good. We have a Sony AV amp (cheap one) - can't fault it... Yamaha **From terrible to passable. Not my favourites but the AV we had amp was OK.... Cyrus **Urk. Yes, I've never been impressed by them... Marantz **From passable to quite good. Couldn't see what all the fuss was about - 6010 series or summat? NAD **Passable to quite good. My youngest son has one and loves it - the matching CD player has got a tricky tray (now ya sees me, now ya don't) but he lnows how to work it!! Quad **Passable. Yes, other than the recent pre/power a guy brought here. That really was quite nice and beautifully built. Rotel **Passable to quite good. Yes, apart from the power amp I had (smallest in the power amp range - about 4 inches high) - the front panel used to pant along with the music!! Technics **Urk (though some of their older models were nice.. Love the amps, always disappointed by the boring sound after a while... JVC **Puke. An old one (huge volume knob) - my nephew has had it for years now and still loves it. Nikko **Are they still around? Wrong section - s/b in the 'heard' section. It belonged to a girlfriend years back and reminds me I've probably heard tins of Trios and other similar amps from back then. Musical Fidelity **From shocking to passable. Swim was in a Clarinet Quintet with Tony Michaelson, but I don't think even that would persuade me to part with the sort of money his stuff costs. What kills me with that bloke is he gazumps all his own 'world-beating, limited edition' (overpriced) offerings with ones he claims to be 'much better' usually about a year or so afterwards!! Acoustic Solutions **Never heard them. Chainstore toys - I've recently bought one. Weedy (hence the Denon) but *magic* VFM (59 quid with digital remote everything). Plenty good enough for a small room, radio/CD use or someone on a budget who doesn't want a smeggy old banger from eBay. (Actually, having said that, its own little Phono Stage was/is surprisingly good - easily as good as a ProJect Phono Box or NAD PP1, which would make the rest of the amp about 9 quid....) Parasound **From ordinary to passable. Very ordinary but powerful. Luxman **Their new stuff? Dunno. No, old one with a fabulous front panel but very bland sound...... And also heard these: Arcam **From respectable to brilliant (their 'Ring DAC' equipped CD players are breathtakingly good) Wouldn't know but what I heard didn't strike me as very good VFM... Roksan **Not bad. Perfectly OK but not cheap.... Meridian **Good to very good. Krell **Weird sounding to quite good. Can't remember the sound now, I just remember being a tad underwhelmed!! (Couldn't have been that good or I would have bought it at the time....) (The truth is, you get a better bang for your buck with a Chinese valve amp off eBay these days! ;-) **Only in your delusion. I've seen/heard a few and they're simply terrible. Doesn't equate with my own experience - but then I'm only interested in the *music* they make, not the components they've used. At the price, they are a near-disposable item... |
arcam advice please
"Rob" wrote in message ... Trevor Wilson wrote: "Rob" wrote in message snip I don't follow this, and remain pretty confused about the whole SS pantomime. Apart from build quality (that 7-odd kg has to go somewhere) what has that amp got that improves the way it amplifies, and hence sound? **Quite a bit, actually. It is not all that difficult to coax bad behaviour from an amplifier which performs perfectly into a perfectly resistive load. Since few loudspeakers act like resistors, you can readily appreciate why amplifier can sound different, yet measure similarly. Readily appreciate eh :-) On the one hand, I gather from technical people on this ng that all amps which 1) drive a 2 ohm load at 3 times the maximum 8 ohm power (100W 8 ohm, 300W 2 ohm at 1% THD for 3 seconds for example); *and* 2) are properly designed and manufactured (nearly all of the big name stuff nowadays), will sound identical. I doubt any Denon achieves (1) btw. **The magic words in this statement a "...are properly designed and manufactured.." I think the point here is that virtually all amplifiers from major manufacturers are properly designed and manufactured - that's what I'm led to believe. **Well, I'm here to tell you that is not the case. At least from my perspective, anyway. Most of them perform quite competently and meet most of their specs when driving a resistor. Trouble is, most listeners don't listen with resistors. They use loudspeakers. Additioanlly, manufacturers conveniently omit certain specifications, which don't appear all that flattering to their product, but which may affect sound quality considerably. Damping factor, for instance. Few manufacturers quote it at frequencies in excess of 1kHz. Many amplifiers so-called: 'digital amplifiers' or switching amplifiers are notoriously bad performers in this area. On the other hand, it's not hard to find plenty of reviews and anecdotes that suggest amplifiers at a given spec do sound different. Curious - is there any defining factor in your opinion?! **Sure. Measuring speakers into actual loudspeakers can reveal differences which may be quite audible. That sounds fair enough - is there a particular measurement that stands out? **Any of them. Most amplifiers perform worse, when confronted by a complex load impedance. My curiosity here was to compare the Denon with the Argos POS I have been using (having compared CDPs) and I have reduced this stack: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/cdpcompare.JPG To this: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/denonstack.JPG (See how the 'spares' are created!!?? :-) And I tell you summat - listening askance, with my back turned and eyes shut at midnight on a foggy day and somebody else working the throttle, I couldn't tell 'em apart!! The '30W' Argos amp weighs 5.3 kg and costs 60 quid, the '50W' Denon weighs 7.0 kg and costs 250 quid (list)!! (Where do they get these bloody power output figures from? - I got an 8 watt 300B SET that will blow *both* of them into the weeds!!) **Yeah, sure. Well, possibly! Comparing a 100W valve amp and a 140W SS - the valve amp is simply louder. **Sometimes, yes. But Keith was talking about an EIGHT WATT amp vs a 50 Watt amp. BIG difference. The reality is that the SPL difference between two, otherwise identical, 100 Watt and 140 Watt amps will be barely audible. The differences you refer to, with valve amps are mostly as follows: 1) Valve amps tend to clip (Voltage limit) rather gracefully. Thus they can be driven further into clipping, without obvious 'nastiness' and an increase in average SPL. 2) Valve amps tend to possess a more benign current limit characteristic, due to the abscence of current limit systems, which are normally used in (BJT) transistor amps. 3) Valve amps, by virtue of their higher Voltages, tend to have quite large energy storage systems (the equation is: 1/2CV^2), though the actual capacitance seems to be quite small. Additionally, the capacitors used in valve amps tend to possess lower ESL figures. 4) Valve amps require the use of large power transformers, in order to supply filament supplies. This means more iron and thus energy storage in the power transformer itself. 1) Can be compensated for with transistor amps, via several mechanisms, but rarely is. 2) Can be compensated for, but it rarely done in transistor amps. 3) Can be compensated for, by adding more, small value capacitors. 4) Can be compensated for by using larger transformers. It's not that difficult. The manufacturer needs to spend a little money on the design. IOW: In general terms, if the manufacturer has performed the above and the consumer is willing to spend more money, a 100 Watt transistor amp will sound just as loud as a 100 Watt valve amp. It's all about money. Valve amp owners seem prepared to spend more on big valve amps than they do on equivalent transistor amps. They then proclaim that the transistor amp sounds worse, even though it was half the price. Sheesh! Yes, OK :-) What I'm driving at is trying to understand the thing that matters - the 'several mechanisms' you refer to. We're (non-techs) given a set of variables: price, brand (I'd lump kudos, heritage and so on here), degrees of minimalism, weight, looks, reviews and electrical specifications. Is there any decent logic that could help determine which matter? **Yep. Use your own speakers, in your own listening room to test. Unless you have a great depth of understanding, the numbers are not all that helpful. In fact, graphs are far more useful, but far less flattering to almost any amplifier. Significantly, most amplifier manufacturers don't publish graphs. Go figure (as they say)...!! (OK, The Denon sits at 50% volume while the Argos amp is at 90% into the stubborn little horns....) Incidentally, I can see why SS users might not like horns - there is a tendancy to a little 'honkiness' with them that you don't get with valves...??!! But, contrary to what one or two here would have you believe, us 'valvies' are not so bigotted - I love these amps and for a few weeks in every year, it's nice to run an SS amp and soft top car!! (Well, the days of me having a nice little soft top in the barn are long gone, but I can still afford an SS amp or two!! :-) **Then choose a decent SS amp. Here's my last bit of Show N Tell for the day - the kid (my oldest) in this car is 30 now!! http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/softtop.JPG **Oh dear. I was hoping for a Morgan, at least. MGs are so passe'. They always sounded better than they went. Back in the day, one of my mates owned and MGB and the other a Datsun Princess. The Datsun could easily pull 120MPH and the MG, well...... Not so fast. Let's not even get started on oil leaks. Did Pommy car builders ever manage to build oil seals which, well, sealed? And this is from one who has owned four Escorts. Not one of them could keep the oil where it belonged. Now back to earth with a bump - I gotta go and make a start on the fascia boards and guttering now!! :-( **Don't get me started. I just moved to a new home and we now live the most beautiful part of Sydney. Lots of trees (and possums, Magpies, Cockatoos, et al). The gutters glog every fime mins or so. Since it is a two story place and I don't espically enjoy crawling around the roof 5 Metres off the ground, I got a quote for this fancy new non-clog guttering (it really is very clever stuff). http://www.easyflow.com.au/ Better than clever, actually. It's brilliant. FIFTEEN GRAND!!!! Yikes! Nice product, but jeez. Maybe I'll keep climbing ladders for a bit longer. Leaf blockage? **Yup. I can relate to this having just moved to a house with wooden gutters in the city of trees ;-) **Wooden gutters???!!! What planet do you live on? -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
arcam advice please
"Keith G" wrote in message ... "tony sayer" wrote writes Or even a S/H Audiolab;)) **Not so fond the old ones, myself. A bit hard on my ears. Possibly a shade too accurate for some tastes;)...... So what are you two saying between you? Accurate = unpleasant??? **Not me. I like accurate amps (and speakers, CD players, et al). What I don't enjoy are amps which sound irritating. Old Audiolabs sound irritating. (I've never heard any Audiolab gear myself and I've never read a description of it that didn't use the word 'grey' somewhere or other...???) **OK. Audiolabs are pretty good amps, vis a vis load tolerance. Not all is bad with them. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
arcam advice please
"Jim Lesurf" wrote in message ... In article , Keith G wrote: [snip] ....and it is certain that it blows the 30W amp away. The *impression* is that it would blow the 50W amp away also, but I concede this is probably unlikely and haven't made a direct comparison. It is not the *loudness* it is the *vastness* of the sound from valves - subtle difference. However people are discussing two issues. One is that some amps may actually give indistinguishable results in given conditions of use, and that it is possible to provide information to allow a potential purchaser/user to decide if this is likely when considering a choice between them. The other is that some amps have properties which mean they will provide 'altered' results. The user may or may not prefer this. I'm not sure what exact points you are replying to - it's not possible to 'flick back' to piece it together. My view on amplifiers is that I believe thay *all* contribute to the 'end product' sound produced in a given situation, whether it be because they have certain characteristics/properties or because they lack them. I'm easy either way and merely build the system using such bits of kit that I think go well together...??? Interestingly, I believe the pundits here have got it the wrong way round - I think you have to spend a lot of money on an SS amp to get the characteristics (that I happen to prefer) which can be found in relatively inexpensive valve amps! That said, when I spend a little money on a modest SS amp I do know what to expect when I use it!! In both cases, though, the snag is that 'reviews' may simply fail to give the relevant information, and spout a lot of opinions which might either be nonsense or not apply to the potential user's situation. Taking it that you mean magazine reviews, I think most 'audio enthusiast old hands' approach them with the same pinch of salt and disregard the purple prose and silly personal opinions. (The facts and figures can be useful if they are *correct* and the pictures are always useful ...) What bothers me is that, nonsense or not (and I suspect a lot of it is), the magazines go a long way to instigating/perpetuating 'schools of thought' and that relative newcomers can be easily persuaded to follow 'collective thinking', prescribed 'upgrade paths' or buy expensive kit they do not need. (None of us are immune to this - there are at least some here who will buy certain names *unheard* whatever the price....) My own researches over the last few years have been to explore the 'VFM' possibilities of cheap and/or secondhand kit (spending far more than the price of a stack of 'mames' in the process) and it has been a lot of fun hearing/seeing very positive reactions to very setups. All very good, but hardly helpful to the industry - the symbiosis that exists between the magazines and the manufacturer is not an unimportant one if it helps the 'audio industry' is to survive. We here all know that 'sound quality' is disappearing fast (call it 'digitisation', if you like :-) and the all-important, spending Joe Ordinaire is being swept down the 'sound is only the *aural* side of AV' gutter..... |
arcam advice please
"Keith G" wrote This crap: My own researches over the last few years have been to explore the 'VFM' possibilities of cheap and/or secondhand kit (spending far more than the price of a stack of 'mames' in the process) and it has been a lot of fun hearing/seeing very positive reactions to very setups. All very good, but hardly helpful to the industry - the symbiosis that exists between the magazines and the manufacturer is not an unimportant one if it helps the 'audio industry' is to survive. It should have been: My own researches over the last few years have been to explore the 'VFM' possibilities of cheap and/or secondhand kit (spending far more than the price of a stack of 'names' in the process) and it has been a lot of fun hearing/seeing very positive reactions to modest setups. All very good, but hardly helpful to the industry - the symbiosis that exists between the magazines and the manufacturer is not an unimportant one if it helps the 'audio industry' is to survive. |
arcam advice please
"Keith G" wrote Taking it that you mean magazine reviews, I think most 'audio enthusiast old hands' approach them with the same pinch of salt and disregard the purple prose and silly personal opinions. (The facts and figures can be useful if they are *correct* and the pictures are always useful ...) What bothers me is that, nonsense or not (and I suspect a lot of it is), the magazines go a long way to instigating/perpetuating 'schools of thought' and that relative newcomers can be easily persuaded to follow 'collective thinking', prescribed 'upgrade paths' or buy expensive kit they do not need. (None of us are immune to this - there are at least some here who will buy certain names *unheard* whatever the price....) As I set about tyding this place up just now (two 'ukranian' visitors here today), it dawned on me that the overpriced, overhyped, overrated Dyson vacuum cleaner (a POS which won't even pull past a piece of furniture without tipping over) with all the appearance of a 'well designed' piece of kit (yellow and grey plastic - it was always good for a Good Housekeeping Design Award swing tag) and its own cult following of well-sold *believers* and is good example of what I attempted to describe above..... |
arcam advice please
"Keith G" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote OK. My suspicion was that, for cost effectiveness, the pre section componentry and circuit might be common to most (if not all) of the range....? **Big mistake. Just listen to one of their HT recievers and compare it to one of Denon's standalone tuners and you'll see what I mean. The standalone tuners are very, very good indeed. WTF has that got to do with it? **Well, everything. Japanese manufacturers tend to keep their premium products distinct from their budget stuff, in terms of component choice and topology. Gone are the days when manufactuers used common items in their products. I doubt it.... **When examining two entirely different ranges of products, it is a fact. In fact, check the back panel of your 655 and see where it is manufactured. I KNOW that the 1500 originates from Japan. So what? You think the Chinese can't *manufacture* or summat?? **They COULD, but they don't. Yet. I also know that the previous model used the Alps 'Blue Velvet' volume pot. And anyone who klnows these things, knows that they are a very transparent, long lasting, well matched pot. Standard carbon pots are something else entirely. Keep it real - I'm talking about a 200 quid amp here, not a 2,000 quid amp... **Is the PMA1500AE 2k Squid? My point is that if you cared to listen to the PMA1500AE, you may well be stunned at how good it is and you may well be persuaded to dump all your notions of SS equipment. **I believe that you will go out of your way to ensure that you never hear something truly special, if it contains transistors. I would (within reason) but you still haven't suggested one...?? **Haven't I? Are you paying attention? OK, perhaps you could point me in the right direction, I have had various models of the following makes of SS amps (in no special order): Denon **From terrible to quite good. OK, I'll play! :-) Let me guess - the one I've got comes under the 'terrible' category....??? :-) **Nope. It ain't bad. It ain't great though. Pioneer **From terrible to passable. My current one is a SA-510 - does just fine on the computer... Cambridge Audio **Passable. Mine was a P50 back in the 70s (and an A1 Mk III a few years ago) - I liked them. Sony **From terrible to quite good. We have a Sony AV amp (cheap one) - can't fault it... Yamaha **From terrible to passable. Not my favourites but the AV we had amp was OK.... Cyrus **Urk. Yes, I've never been impressed by them... Marantz **From passable to quite good. Couldn't see what all the fuss was about - 6010 series or summat? NAD **Passable to quite good. My youngest son has one and loves it - the matching CD player has got a tricky tray (now ya sees me, now ya don't) but he lnows how to work it!! Quad **Passable. Yes, other than the recent pre/power a guy brought here. That really was quite nice and beautifully built. Rotel **Passable to quite good. Yes, apart from the power amp I had (smallest in the power amp range - about 4 inches high) - the front panel used to pant along with the music!! Technics **Urk (though some of their older models were nice.. Love the amps, always disappointed by the boring sound after a while... JVC **Puke. An old one (huge volume knob) - my nephew has had it for years now and still loves it. Nikko **Are they still around? Wrong section - s/b in the 'heard' section. It belonged to a girlfriend years back and reminds me I've probably heard tins of Trios and other similar amps from back then. Musical Fidelity **From shocking to passable. Swim was in a Clarinet Quintet with Tony Michaelson, but I don't think even that would persuade me to part with the sort of money his stuff costs. What kills me with that bloke is he gazumps all his own 'world-beating, limited edition' (overpriced) offerings with ones he claims to be 'much better' usually about a year or so afterwards!! Acoustic Solutions **Never heard them. Chainstore toys - I've recently bought one. Weedy (hence the Denon) but *magic* VFM (59 quid with digital remote everything). Plenty good enough for a small room, radio/CD use or someone on a budget who doesn't want a smeggy old banger from eBay. (Actually, having said that, its own little Phono Stage was/is surprisingly good - easily as good as a ProJect Phono Box or NAD PP1, which would make the rest of the amp about 9 quid....) Parasound **From ordinary to passable. Very ordinary but powerful. Luxman **Their new stuff? Dunno. No, old one with a fabulous front panel but very bland sound...... **Yep. And also heard these: Arcam **From respectable to brilliant (their 'Ring DAC' equipped CD players are breathtakingly good) Wouldn't know but what I heard didn't strike me as very good VFM... **Their amps are quite respectable, IMO. And, as I stated before, their 'Ring DAC' equipped CD players are astonishingly good. Roksan **Not bad. Perfectly OK but not cheap.... Meridian **Good to very good. Krell **Weird sounding to quite good. Can't remember the sound now, I just remember being a tad underwhelmed!! (Couldn't have been that good or I would have bought it at the time....) (The truth is, you get a better bang for your buck with a Chinese valve amp off eBay these days! ;-) **Only in your delusion. I've seen/heard a few and they're simply terrible. Doesn't equate with my own experience - but then I'm only interested in the *music* they make, not the components they've used. At the price, they are a near-disposable item... **Here's a thought: Compare your cheap, Chinese amps with a known good quality amp. Say, an Audio Research VT100. Then compare the VT100 to a high quality SS amp. Let me know what you find. For me, I find the cheap Chinese amps to sound like crap. They colour the sound to an unnacceptable degree. Their build quality is nothing to write home about and their output transformers (the single, most important part about any valve amp) are crap. A cheap Rotel would nail them to the wall. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
arcam advice please
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote OK. My suspicion was that, for cost effectiveness, the pre section componentry and circuit might be common to most (if not all) of the range....? **Big mistake. Just listen to one of their HT recievers and compare it to one of Denon's standalone tuners and you'll see what I mean. The standalone tuners are very, very good indeed. WTF has that got to do with it? **Well, everything. Japanese manufacturers tend to keep their premium products distinct from their budget stuff, in terms of component choice and topology. I'd hardly call a 250 and a 500 quid amp 'premium products'.... Gone are the days when manufactuers used common items in their products. I doubt it.... **When examining two entirely different ranges of products, it is a fact. I'm sure it is for *entirely different ranges of products*.... (????) In fact, check the back panel of your 655 and see where it is manufactured. I KNOW that the 1500 originates from Japan. So what? You think the Chinese can't *manufacture* or summat?? **They COULD, but they don't. Yet. That's Quad, NAD, Audiolab, Mission, Wharfedale, Rogers (et al) in the **** then.... Keep it real - I'm talking about a 200 quid amp here, not a 2,000 quid amp... **Is the PMA1500AE 2k Squid? My point is that if you cared to listen to the PMA1500AE, you may well be stunned at how good it is and you may well be persuaded to dump all your notions of SS equipment. For two pins (and 449 on the Net) it's almost tempting.... (Then I got another bloody amp in my spares cupboard, ain't I....??) Wader minnit - *AE*...?? Not 1500R? What's the difference??? OK, forget that - I found a nice comparator on the Denon UK website. (the 2000AE goes 24 kg eh....??) **I believe that you will go out of your way to ensure that you never hear something truly special, if it contains transistors. I would (within reason) but you still haven't suggested one...?? **Haven't I? Are you paying attention? Sorry, what did you say....??? (I nodded off....) OK, perhaps you could point me in the right direction, I have had various models of the following makes of SS amps (in no special order): Denon **From terrible to quite good. OK, I'll play! :-) Let me guess - the one I've got comes under the 'terrible' category....??? :-) **Nope. It ain't bad. It ain't great though. I think it's beezer - it fronts my triode power amps up a feck sight better than the EAR Line Stage!! (Another hole in another foot.....) The 2A3 SET, driven by the Pre-Outs from the Denon, on my Jerichos (96 dB) with the new Viston drivers (only 106 quid a side...) is a *terrifying* combination - I haven't even *begun* to take it in yet and the bloody drivers are only 3/4 days old yet!! (Ask Phil here about 'flinching'....!! ;-) Luxman **Their new stuff? Dunno. No, old one with a fabulous front panel but very bland sound...... **Yep. Here it is: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/luxman.JPG Not quite as nice as I remembered it and no remote - so no hard feelings.... **Here's a thought: Compare your cheap, Chinese amps with a known good quality amp. Say, an Audio Research VT100. Then compare the VT100 to a high quality SS amp. Let me know what you find. You're talking like a **** - I wouldn't know where to begin to look for a VT100 and I'm damned if I would chase after one!! I said 'within reason'... For me, I find the cheap Chinese amps to sound like crap. They colour the sound to an unnacceptable degree. Their build quality is nothing to write home about and their output transformers (the single, most important part about any valve amp) are crap. A cheap Rotel would nail them to the wall. It's the British Motorcycle Industry 'Jap Crap' mantra all over again, ain't it...??? |
arcam advice please
"Keith G" wrote The 2A3 SET, driven by the Pre-Outs from the Denon, on my Jerichos (96 dB) with the new Viston drivers (only 106 quid a side...) is a *terrifying* combination - I haven't even *begun* to take it in yet and the bloody drivers are only 3/4 days old yet!! OK, that's *Visaton* and here's a pic of the boxes: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/visaton.JPG Compare the (4") 'Datsun Grilles' with the B200 boxes for an idea of size..... ;-) |
arcam advice please
"Keith G" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote in message ... "Keith G" wrote in message ... "Trevor Wilson" wrote OK. My suspicion was that, for cost effectiveness, the pre section componentry and circuit might be common to most (if not all) of the range....? **Big mistake. Just listen to one of their HT recievers and compare it to one of Denon's standalone tuners and you'll see what I mean. The standalone tuners are very, very good indeed. WTF has that got to do with it? **Well, everything. Japanese manufacturers tend to keep their premium products distinct from their budget stuff, in terms of component choice and topology. I'd hardly call a 250 and a 500 quid amp 'premium products'.... **There's your problem. You equate price with quality. Gone are the days when manufactuers used common items in their products. I doubt it.... **When examining two entirely different ranges of products, it is a fact. I'm sure it is for *entirely different ranges of products*.... **Good. Now we're getting womewhere. (????) In fact, check the back panel of your 655 and see where it is manufactured. I KNOW that the 1500 originates from Japan. So what? You think the Chinese can't *manufacture* or summat?? **They COULD, but they don't. Yet. That's Quad, NAD, Audiolab, Mission, Wharfedale, Rogers (et al) in the **** then.... **Looks like. Keep it real - I'm talking about a 200 quid amp here, not a 2,000 quid amp... **Is the PMA1500AE 2k Squid? My point is that if you cared to listen to the PMA1500AE, you may well be stunned at how good it is and you may well be persuaded to dump all your notions of SS equipment. For two pins (and 449 on the Net) it's almost tempting.... (Then I got another bloody amp in my spares cupboard, ain't I....??) Wader minnit - *AE*...?? Not 1500R? What's the difference??? **Dunno. I have yet to examine the 1500AE closely. OK, forget that - I found a nice comparator on the Denon UK website. (the 2000AE goes 24 kg eh....??) **I believe that you will go out of your way to ensure that you never hear something truly special, if it contains transistors. I would (within reason) but you still haven't suggested one...?? **Haven't I? Are you paying attention? Sorry, what did you say....??? (I nodded off....) OK, perhaps you could point me in the right direction, I have had various models of the following makes of SS amps (in no special order): Denon **From terrible to quite good. OK, I'll play! :-) Let me guess - the one I've got comes under the 'terrible' category....??? :-) **Nope. It ain't bad. It ain't great though. I think it's beezer - it fronts my triode power amps up a feck sight better than the EAR Line Stage!! **Yeah, well, that would not be difficult. The 1500AE blows away the 655. (Another hole in another foot.....) The 2A3 SET, driven by the Pre-Outs from the Denon, on my Jerichos (96 dB) with the new Viston drivers (only 106 quid a side...) is a *terrifying* combination - I haven't even *begun* to take it in yet and the bloody drivers are only 3/4 days old yet!! (Ask Phil here about 'flinching'....!! ;-) Luxman **Their new stuff? Dunno. No, old one with a fabulous front panel but very bland sound...... **Yep. Here it is: http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/luxman.JPG Not quite as nice as I remembered it and no remote - so no hard feelings.... **Jeez! You've got to be kidding! That thing is, what? 30 years old? You've replaced every electrolytic cap in it, haven't you? If you haven't, it's performance will be a long way off par. Even then, I'll betcha it is chocka with crappy electrolytic coupling caps. **Here's a thought: Compare your cheap, Chinese amps with a known good quality amp. Say, an Audio Research VT100. Then compare the VT100 to a high quality SS amp. Let me know what you find. You're talking like a **** - I wouldn't know where to begin to look for a VT100 and I'm damned if I would chase after one!! I said 'within reason'... **I'm talking like a sane person. The VT100 represents, aguably, the pinnnacle of what is possible with a valve power amp. After you compare one to your cheap Chinese amps, you can then make some logical deductions about the quality (or lack thereof) of the comparison amp. For me, I find the cheap Chinese amps to sound like crap. They colour the sound to an unnacceptable degree. Their build quality is nothing to write home about and their output transformers (the single, most important part about any valve amp) are crap. A cheap Rotel would nail them to the wall. It's the British Motorcycle Industry 'Jap Crap' mantra all over again, ain't it...??? **Nope. The BIG difference, was that the Japanese, almost from day one, adopted the mantra: "We must build the best quality we can." A present, China represents a huge, cheap labour force, which allows Western and Japanese companies the capacity to produce existing designs at lower prices. It will not always be so. China can and will produce superior quality products at lower prices. However, all the cheap, Chinese amps I've seen, lack decent quality output transformers. And it is the output transformer which is pivotal to the quality of a valve amplifier. Frankly, I am surprised that you bother arguing this point. And again: It will not always be this way. I purchased some Chinese KT88s some years ago. They were the worst (and I do mean, THE WORST) valves I have ever purchased. Ever. Of the ones which did not fail instantly, the rest enjoyed a very short life span. I tracked down some NOS, MOV KT88s (at huge cost to the client), which are still in service today. Newer Chinese valves are much better, but, IMO, the Russian valves are better still. The Chinese will build decent valve amps, but they do not (IME, do so at present. Purchasers would be much better putting their money towards a (say) Rotel instead. -- Trevor Wilson www.rageaudio.com.au -- Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:51 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
SEO by vBSEO 3.0.0
Copyright ©2004-2006 AudioBanter.co.uk