"Trevor Wilson" wrote


**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:


OK, to reduce the 'exaggeration' somewhat - the SET in question is actually
rated at 10 watts (?) by the manufacturer - see the cut and paste from the
eBay auction on my webpage:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/bez/bezt3b-3.htm

.....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. But I posted here a while back that two
electricians working here respectively guessed my 2A3 SET (4 watts max) to
be 100 and 200 watts. OK, they weren't 'audiophiles' but they weren't
stupid, either...



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!


Reword that thus: "Valve amp owners seem prepared to spend more on big valve
amps than they do on equivalent transistor amps. They then proclaim that the
valve amp sounds better, even though it was double the price." Presents less
of a dilemma that way, doesn't it?

Now, you're the one to ask Trevor, so tell me...

Last night I do believe I got what I suspect* is going to be, yet again, the
best sound ever** by driving my 2A3 SET power amp with the Pre Outs from
the Denon - gives me the 'valve sound' but much bigger (due to the
preamplification, of course) with all mod cons like remote control &c. and
the facility to choose the Denon only on other speakers (2 pairs,
asitappens) for all day background sound and 'summer running'!

So, the question is: Do you think all the 'pre gubbins' - Phono Stage,
controls, knobs, switches, sockets &c. would likely be of equal quality to
the higher priced models you mentioned? (The Phono Stage does seem very
good - certainly good enough for 'background sound', but no comparison with
my valve PS yet...)

I really only wanted the top half of the amp for serious listening and
didn't need/want to pay for unnecessary beef. I'm also gambling that the
'pre' side of an amp like this is going to be effectively *invisible* and I
suspect/believe that this valve/SS hybrid combination will be better than
the other way round - I've tried a valve pre/SS power combo before and it
stinks! (Gives you the worst of both worlds!)


*already know, actually - I'm only being cautious because the drivers are
only a day old yet. See where 'square becomes round' at the bottom of this
page:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/fostexfe206e/fostex.htm


** Never surrender, never give in - keep spending....!! :-)

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote


**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:


OK, to reduce the 'exaggeration' somewhat - the SET in question is
actually
rated at 10 watts (?) by the manufacturer - see the cut and paste from the
eBay auction on my webpage:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/bez/bezt3b-3.htm

....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.

**I also think it unlikely.


It is not the *loudness* it is the *vastness* of the sound from
valves - subtle difference. But I posted here a while back that two
electricians working here respectively guessed my 2A3 SET (4 watts max) to
be 100 and 200 watts. OK, they weren't 'audiophiles' but they weren't
stupid, either...

**Few people can pick the output power ability of an amplifier,in unfamiliar
(or familiar) settings. As you are well aware, a few extra dB of speaker
efficiency can make things very different indeed.




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!


Reword that thus: "Valve amp owners seem prepared to spend more on big
valve amps than they do on equivalent transistor amps. They then proclaim
that the valve amp sounds better, even though it was double the price."
Presents less of a dilemma that way, doesn't it?

**Indeed, but that is the fact. Dollar for Dollar, a transistor can easily
wipe the floor with a valve amp, IF the manufacturer has paid attention to
my earlier comments. Most do not. The reality is this: Valve amps are
designed in specific ways, which are mostly to do with the expense and
limitation inherent to them. Transistor amps are (mostly) designed in
specific ways which relate to the low cost of the active devices themselves.
Imagine, for a moment, that a transistor amp maunfacturer decided to build
his product in such a way that he treated each amplification stage as though
is was very expensive to implement. You would have an amplifier which
combined the strengths of a valve amp (benign Voltage limiting, non-existent
current limiting, huge power supply and load insensitivity) with the obvious
strengths normally associated with a transistor amp ('perfect' frequency
response, inaudible distortion figures, lack of distortion producing output
transformers, etc). THEN you'd have an interseting product. Yes?


Now, you're the one to ask Trevor, so tell me...

Last night I do believe I got what I suspect* is going to be, yet again,
the best sound ever** by driving my 2A3 SET power amp with the Pre Outs
from the Denon - gives me the 'valve sound' but much bigger (due to the
preamplification, of course) with all mod cons like remote control &c. and
the facility to choose the Denon only on other speakers (2 pairs,
asitappens) for all day background sound and 'summer running'!

So, the question is: Do you think all the 'pre gubbins' - Phono Stage,
controls, knobs, switches, sockets &c. would likely be of equal quality to
the higher priced models you mentioned? (The Phono Stage does seem very
good - certainly good enough for 'background sound', but no comparison
with my valve PS yet...)

**Fair question. I have not (yet) opened up either of the two Denon amps in
question, so I can't comment on the topology, nor the quality of the pots
and switches, though it is reasonable to assume that Denon have probably
used an Alps 'Blue Velvet' or equivalent pot in the PMA1500AE and a cheap
carbon pot in the 655. I'll know soon enough, when they start appearing on
my bench for service. I have, however, performed some short listening tests
on both amps, using a Thoren turntable, with a couple of nice cartridges.
The PMA1500AE blew away the 655. The sound was far less hard on my ears with
the 1500, yet, surprisingly, more detailed. I readily admit that I was not
only comparing preamp sections, so the test was not as comprehensive as I
would like it to be. Ideally, I'd have them in my own system for a few days.
Having said that, the difference between the two amps is not subtle. I
sugest to you that if you think the 655 is a good amp, then you have not
heard very many REALLY good amps yet.


I really only wanted the top half of the amp for serious listening and
didn't need/want to pay for unnecessary beef. I'm also gambling that the
'pre' side of an amp like this is going to be effectively *invisible* and
I suspect/believe that this valve/SS hybrid combination will be better
than the other way round - I've tried a valve pre/SS power combo before
and it stinks! (Gives you the worst of both worlds!)

**I understand that you may not have a lot of experience in choosing a good
SS amp yet.



--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"Trevor Wilson" wrote


**Fair question. I have not (yet) opened up either of the two Denon amps
in question, so I can't comment on the topology, nor the quality of the
pots and switches, though it is reasonable to assume that Denon have
probably used an Alps 'Blue Velvet' or equivalent pot in the PMA1500AE and
a cheap carbon pot in the 655. I'll know soon enough, when they start
appearing on my bench for service.


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....?


I have, however, performed some short listening tests
on both amps, using a Thoren turntable, with a couple of nice cartridges.
The PMA1500AE blew away the 655. The sound was far less hard on my ears
with the 1500, yet, surprisingly, more detailed. I readily admit that I
was not only comparing preamp sections, so the test was not as
comprehensive as I would like it to be. Ideally, I'd have them in my own
system for a few days. Having said that, the difference between the two
amps is not subtle. I sugest to you that if you think the 655 is a good
amp, then you have not heard very many REALLY good amps yet.


I don't know about it being a *good* amp as such - I'm pleased with it and
it's doing what I bought it for well enough, but I wasn't expecting to get
the 'best amp in the world' for 200 ackers, believe it or not.....




I really only wanted the top half of the amp for serious listening and
didn't need/want to pay for unnecessary beef. I'm also gambling that the
'pre' side of an amp like this is going to be effectively *invisible* and
I suspect/believe that this valve/SS hybrid combination will be better
than the other way round - I've tried a valve pre/SS power combo before
and it stinks! (Gives you the worst of both worlds!)

**I understand that you may not have a lot of experience in choosing a
good SS amp yet.


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
Pioneer
Cambridge Audio
Sony
Yamaha
Cyrus
Marantz
NAD
Quad
Rotel
Technics
JVC
Nikko
Musical Fidelity
Acoustic Solutions
Parasound
Luxman


And also heard these:

Arcam
Roksan
Meridian
Krell


Probably plus a few others I don't remember in each case - and although I
loved each and every one of them (almost) at the time, I wasn't really happy
until I got my first valve amp. Best of that lot above? Possibly the
Meridian Pre/Power Monos, see on the floor in this pic:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/meridians.JPG


With a Quad pre/power combo that I heard recently (already forgotten the
'numbers') following very closely, otherwise there's bugger-all to choose
between most of them - they all do the job fairly well and I reckon it comes
down to what 'bells and whistles (and blue LEDs) you get for your money at
the end of the day.

(The truth is, you get a better bang for your buck with a Chinese valve amp
off eBay these days! ;-)

"Keith G" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote


**Fair question. I have not (yet) opened up either of the two Denon amps
in question, so I can't comment on the topology, nor the quality of the
pots and switches, though it is reasonable to assume that Denon have
probably used an Alps 'Blue Velvet' or equivalent pot in the PMA1500AE
and
a cheap carbon pot in the 655. I'll know soon enough, when they start
appearing on my bench for service.


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. Gone are the days when manufactuers used
common items in their products. In fact, check the back panel of your 655
and see where it is manufactured. I KNOW that the 1500 originates from
Japan. 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.



I have, however, performed some short listening tests
on both amps, using a Thoren turntable, with a couple of nice cartridges.
The PMA1500AE blew away the 655. The sound was far less hard on my ears
with the 1500, yet, surprisingly, more detailed. I readily admit that I
was not only comparing preamp sections, so the test was not as
comprehensive as I would like it to be. Ideally, I'd have them in my own
system for a few days. Having said that, the difference between the two
amps is not subtle. I sugest to you that if you think the 655 is a good
amp, then you have not heard very many REALLY good amps yet.


I don't know about it being a *good* amp as such - I'm pleased with it and
it's doing what I bought it for well enough, but I wasn't expecting to get
the 'best amp in the world' for 200 ackers, believe it or not.....

**I believe that you will go out of your way to ensure that you never hear
something truly special, if it contains transistors.





I really only wanted the top half of the amp for serious listening and
didn't need/want to pay for unnecessary beef. I'm also gambling that the
'pre' side of an amp like this is going to be effectively *invisible*
and
I suspect/believe that this valve/SS hybrid combination will be better
than the other way round - I've tried a valve pre/SS power combo before
and it stinks! (Gives you the worst of both worlds!)

**I understand that you may not have a lot of experience in choosing a
good SS amp yet.


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.

Pioneer

**From terrible to passable.

Cambridge Audio

**Passable.

Sony

**From terrible to quite good.

Yamaha

**From terrible to passable.

Cyrus

**Urk.

Marantz

**From passable to quite good.

NAD

**Passable to quite good.

Quad

**Passable.

Rotel

**Passable to quite good.

Technics

**Urk (though some of their older models were nice..

JVC

**Puke.

Nikko

**Are they still around?

Musical Fidelity

**From shocking to passable.

Acoustic Solutions

**Never heard them.

Parasound

**From ordinary to passable.

Luxman

**Their new stuff? Dunno.



And also heard these:

Arcam

**From respectable to brilliant (their 'Ring DAC' equipped CD players are
breathtakingly good)

Roksan

**Not bad.

Meridian

**Good to very good.

Krell

**Weird sounding to quite good.



Probably plus a few others I don't remember in each case - and although I
loved each and every one of them (almost) at the time, I wasn't really
happy until I got my first valve amp. Best of that lot above? Possibly the
Meridian Pre/Power Monos, see on the floor in this pic:

http://www.apah69.dsl.pipex.com/show/meridians.JPG


With a Quad pre/power combo that I heard recently (already forgotten the
'numbers') following very closely, otherwise there's bugger-all to choose
between most of them - they all do the job fairly well and I reckon it
comes down to what 'bells and whistles (and blue LEDs) you get for your
money at the end of the day.

(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.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"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...

"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

"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...???

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.

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.

Slainte,

Jim

--
Electronics http://www.st-and.ac.uk/~www_pa/Scot...o/electron.htm
Audio Misc http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/AudioMisc/index.html
Armstrong Audio http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/Audio/armstrong.html
Barbirolli Soc. http://www.st-and.demon.co.uk/JBSoc/JBSoc.html

"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.....

"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.