If all well designed amplifiers are difficult to distinguish

[Laurens_B]

Despite of how life started,

whats the purpose of life? why do we suffer? why do we die? what happens when we die? important questions no human can answer without the Bible from God.

I just wanted to share that some of us in this forum believe in God when I was posed the question thats all, when I was in a chemistry lesson when I was at school and I first layed my eyes on the periodic table of the elements, I quickly figured that it can't be possible to have such an organized composition of physical matter without intelligence behind it.

Elements organized by proton number and properties... I thought with my own brain as a kid that was fascinating. So look arround you, think about science, people, feelings, nature and draw your conclusion, if you think there can be physical laws without a lawmaker thats fine by me, I look arround with help from what we know thanks to science and conclude that there is no other way.

Anyhow, I like amps and speakers, so I will go and follow God, and you can go and follow mr Dawkins, and we can be happy.

Just because I can't not respond on this:

The fact that humans do not have answers to questions like "what happens when we die", does not mean that therefore the Bible must have it right. You could also think, we just don't know (yet). I understand religion provides support for people who don't like to live without having "safe" answers to all these questions.

So because you think it's just not possible that the periodic table can occur without intelligence behind it, religion must be true. And you question the evidence presented for the theory of evolution?

Im not an expert on every field but im an expert of the Bible I can assure you, but you cannot dispute that scientists don't agree on evolution, otherwise it wouldn't be so controvercial.

Sure because I think something doesn't make it fact, of corse, who am I? I'm just like you a human.

More scientists than even before believe in God, Albert Einstein himself did even tho not involved with any religion, Science does not go against God, even tho many think it does, wrongly.

All I meant if for you to make your own assessment with observation, which is a scientific method.

Of course scientists do not agree on everything, else there would be not much acedemic research going on. This is also fine. However, scientist do agree on reasoning and logic. I think there are more disagreements in religion. Just look at all the different religions that all claim to be right, and even within religions there are many many different points of view.

Where religion tries to rely on different translation of a scripture, with no basis whatsoever (thats why it's called believing), science relies on reasoning and logic, and scientists are trying to find out TOGETHER what the most likely truth is. Science does not try to fight religion or something, it just tries to find the truth. It just so happens that a lot of scientific research disagrees with the Bible.

Whatever you think of it, say about it, science allows you to go to work everyday, it allows you to have access to clean drinking water, food, health, safety and this list can be as long as you like. Religion does none of those things (woops, this might lead to something interesting).

 

[Helmut80]

Why is this starting to remind me of a cable thread?

Makes me wish I was reading a cable thread instead.

 

[Laurens_B]

Quick question off topic.

So non of you guys believe in a God or something greater than yourself?

Do you all believe only in the science of men?

Firmly believe in God and love science

Evolution?

Evolution is not factual science, its a theory with no evidence behind it whatsoever, that means you need faith to believe in evolution, as its just a guess. In fact the chances of life starting on its own are so big that are Mathmatically considered impossible, same for the factors to allow life on earth.

If you believe in science you will likely realise that we couldn't be here without a God, that is the designer of our physical universe

Evolution is a theory in the same way that the Earth being larger than the moon is theory.

It cannot be called fact, only because it cannot be empirically tested. Since Darwin came up with the theory it has been rigourously challenged and tested. Nothing to date has disproven it, and fossil records and more importantly genome science have all but proven it fact.

We see the same sequences in trees, apes, pigs, flowers as we do in humans. We (all living life) are related and come from the same origins.

You can stick your head in the sand, but it's pretty dark down there.

You should read Richard Dawkins excellent "The greatest show on Earth" for an eye opener.

By the way, evolution says absolutely NOTHING about how life started,

You can believe in Evolution (by means of natural selection) AND believe in a god. They are not mutually exclusive.

'They are not mutually Exclusive' - great line.

Funnily enough this makes good sense. Is Evolution a detailed view of creation.

The orders the same from bacteria to man.

Time scale being the real difference between the two.

But the big bang theory is as 'religious' as the 'God's creation' theory.

Let there be light....

Question is what was there the second before the big bang.

If the universe is expanding, what's it expanding into. And at the end of it all what will be left?

Interesting points.

The big bang theory is just a scientific concept. There is a lot of disagreement about this, and righteously so. Maybe the big bang theory is totally wrong, fine. We are not afraid to be wrong, we just learn more and more, and try to find what actually happened.

"What was there the second before the big bang". Without getting too much into detail, this is a quite irrelevent question, as time is a property of this universe. There is no definition of time without this universe. It is analogous to asking what lies south of the south pole, it's undefined.

The same goes for what is the universe expanding into. Also, without too much detail, the concept of space is also a property of this universe. It does not mean anything to talk about what space this universe lies in. There probably is no concept of space outside this universe. This makes is also totally practically irrelevant, both space outside this universe, and seconds before the big bang. Because, both the answers to these questions cannot possibly influence anything inside this universe. The system of differential equations that defines the dynamics of this universe are solely dependent on the properties of this universe (assuming that it acts like a system, there has never been any evidence, not ANY evidence, that the universe does not abide consistency).

 

[Rico]

Thinking is good.

I think we should get back to hifi tho, enjoyed the chat very much.

So, can we come up with an amp or more that represents the best value for money, taking into account how its made and how it sounds best bang for buck.

Maybe along the lines of the Rega Elicit R perhaps? More expensive and the returns in sound quality are very deminished or can get cheaper for the same specs and build?

 

[Rico]

Laurens_B, false religion is compared to a harlot (prostitute) in the Bible, Jesus only taught 1 teaching, 1 word.

Please do not link religions with God, he hates false religion and finds them disgusting, Bible says the harlot has prostituted herself with the kings of the earth (governaments) and he promises to destroy all of them soon. Religions are 1 thing, the Bible is another, the truth about God is in the Bible.

God gives us evidence, through Bible prophesy, we cant see God but we can see what he does, in this case nature blind faith is not what God wants. That comes through study.

This is my last post on this, we can carry on privately but not here, weve way abused the off topic allowance.

 

[chebby]

The orders the same from bacteria to man.

With bacteria being unimaginably more successful than 'man' (having been around for about 4 billion years) and is almost guaranteed to be the last life form left on Earth when the Sun eventually vaporizes it.

 

[Thompsonuxb]

?

Quick question off topic.

So non of you guys believe in a God or something greater than yourself?

Do you all believe only in the science of men?

Firmly believe in God and love science

Evolution??

Evolution is not factual science, its a theory with no evidence behind it whatsoever, that means you need faith to believe in evolution, as its just a guess. In fact the chances of life starting on its own are so big that are Mathmatically considered impossible, same for the factors to allow life on earth.

If you believe in science you will likely realise that we couldn't be here without a God, that is the designer of our physical universe

?

Evolution is a theory in the same way that the Earth being larger than the moon is theory.?

It cannot be called fact, only because it cannot be empirically tested. Since Darwin came up with the theory it has been rigourously challenged and tested. Nothing to date has disproven it, and fossil records and more importantly genome science have all but proven it fact.

We see the same sequences in trees, apes, pigs, flowers as we do in humans. We (all living life) are related and come from the same origins.

You can stick your head in the sand, but it's pretty dark down there.

You should read Richard Dawkins excellent "The greatest show on Earth" for an eye opener.

?

?

By the way, evolution says absolutely NOTHING about how life started,

You can believe in Evolution (by means of natural selection) AND believe in a god. They are not mutually exclusive.

'They are not mutually Exclusive' - great line.

Funnily enough this makes good sense. Is Evolution a detailed view of creation.

The orders the same from bacteria to man.

Time scale being the real difference between the two.

But the big bang theory is as 'religious' as the 'God's creation' theory.

Let there be light....

Question is what was there the second before the big bang.

If the universe is expanding, what's it expanding into. And at the end of it all what will be left?

Interesting points.

The big bang theory is just a scientific concept. There is a lot of disagreement about this, and righteously so. Maybe the big bang theory is totally wrong, fine. We are not afraid to be wrong, we just learn more and more, and try to find what actually happened.

"What was there the second before the big bang". Without getting too much into detail, this is a quite irrelevent question, as time is a property of this universe. There is no definition of time without this universe. It is analogous to asking what lies south of the south pole, it's undefined.

The same goes for what is the universe expanding into. Also, without too much detail, the concept of space is also a property of this universe. It does not mean anything to talk about what space this universe lies in. There probably is no concept of space outside this universe. This makes is also totally practically irrelevant, both space outside this universe, and seconds before the big bang. Because, both the answers to these questions cannot possibly influence anything inside this universe. The system of differential equations that defines the dynamics of this universe are solely dependent on the properties of this universe (assuming that it acts like a system, there has never been any evidence, not ANY evidence, that the universe does not abide consistency).

Wow..... You cannot ignore the second before the 'big bang' for there lies all the answers nor can you ignore what the universe is expanding into.

Suppose it's finite!

Lol.... No let's stop....

 

[Covenanter]

Well I guess we have had the worshippers of the holy cables on here so a bit of Bible bashing isn't out of place.

Chris

 

[SteveR750]

I would disagree, it would be fine. Music only requires intermittent high power, not continuous.

Then why, if that power is sufficient, do not mainstream amplifiers, that typically have power supplies in the range I mention, fail to double their power into lower impedance loads? Or does that not matter on "music".

I am left wondering why Roksan would bother to fit a 700va supply into Vlad's K2 amplifier or why Per Abrahamsen would fit an expensive 1000va Noratel transformer into iO's new V20 amplifier.

Dave, good post, I was thinking exacty the same.

Trev, it's lot more quantitative than simply doubling the power. Most cheap amps cannot do that by the way, and very few at any price actually double, good ones come close. What about rise time? Slew rate? You've positioned yourself as the black and white engineer, so you need to describe "good" with numbers.

I already told you, electronics is cheap. There's no reason to think that an expensive amplifier will be better than an inexpensive one at reproducing a square wave if everything else is as good. I think it's you that thinks in black and white.

You can do better than that. My question was how (other than simply buying good quality components) do you make a cheap amp sound like an expensive amp (assuming no differences in profit margin, and component prices and assembly costs the same). I'm not the electrical engineer, though in my experience black and white is a pretty good pallete for good engineers to work with: we're beyond subjective analysis, I'm intrigued how you judge a good amp (if listening to it is not sufficiently accurate).

 

[Jame5]

Will there ever be a boy born who can swim faster than a shark?

I use a relatively cheap amp with more expensive speakers and feel like I've got the balance about right. I don't want to upgrade anything, but if forced I would upgrade the speakers before anything else.

 

[Rico]

My dad, back in the 90's had a Sansui system he brought from South Africa, and the Sansui amp stopped working properly so he went and got a Marantz PM-68 (95w per channel into 8 ohms) to power his old floorstanders, in his opinion its important to get a powerful amp, more power than you need for your speakers, reasoning that way the amp wont clip and wil sound good and the ampo will last longer.

Power over supposed quality of sound

 

[TrevC]

I would disagree, it would be fine. Music only requires intermittent high power, not continuous.

Then why, if that power is sufficient, do not mainstream amplifiers, that typically have power supplies in the range I mention, fail to double their power into lower impedance loads? Or does that not matter on "music".

I am left wondering why Roksan would bother to fit a 700va supply into Vlad's K2 amplifier or why Per Abrahamsen would fit an expensive 1000va Noratel transformer into iO's new V20 amplifier.

Dave, good post, I was thinking exacty the same.

Trev, it's lot more quantitative than simply doubling the power. Most cheap amps cannot do that by the way, and very few at any price actually double, good ones come close. What about rise time? Slew rate? You've positioned yourself as the black and white engineer, so you need to describe "good" with numbers.

I already told you, electronics is cheap. There's no reason to think that an expensive amplifier will be better than an inexpensive one at reproducing a square wave if everything else is as good. I think it's you that thinks in black and white.

You can do better than that. My question was how (other than simply buying good quality components) do you make a cheap amp sound like an expensive amp (assuming no differences in profit margin, and component prices and assembly costs the same). I'm not the electrical engineer, though in my experience black and white is a pretty good pallete for good engineers to work with: we're beyond subjective analysis, I'm intrigued how you judge a good amp (if listening to it is not sufficiently accurate).

It's my contention that the fancy case is all that distinguishes a decent low price amp from an expensive job. The Behringer A500 is an excellent example. With its beefy toroidal transformer and quality parts, you could stick it in a posh frock and sell it for far more.

 

[TrevC]

Despite of how life started,

whats the purpose of life? why do we suffer? why do we die? what happens when we die? important questions no human can answer without the Bible from God.

I just wanted to share that some of us in this forum believe in God when I was posed the question thats all, when I was in a chemistry lesson when I was at school and I first layed my eyes on the periodic table of the elements, I quickly figured that it can't be possible to have such an organized composition of physical matter without intelligence behind it.

Elements organized by proton number and properties... I thought with my own brain as a kid that was fascinating. So look arround you, think about science, people, feelings, nature and draw your conclusion, if you think there can be physical laws without a lawmaker thats fine by me, I look arround with help from what we know thanks to science and conclude that there is no other way.

Theres alot on these on JW.org just type evolution on the search box theres several hundred languages if your first language isn't english like me.

Anyhow, I like amps and speakers, so I will go and follow God, and you can go and follow mr Dawkins, and we can be happy.

Sinister mind control that causes death and breaks up families is of no interest to me, and nobody follows Mr Dawkins, except on Twitter maybe.

 

[TrevC]

?

Quick question off topic.

So non of you guys believe in a God or something greater than yourself?

Do you all believe only in the science of men?

Firmly believe in God and love science

Evolution?

Evolution is not factual science, its a theory with no evidence behind it whatsoever, that means you need faith to believe in evolution, as its just a guess. In fact the chances of life starting on its own are so big that are Mathmatically considered impossible, same for the factors to allow life on earth.

If you believe in science you will likely realise that we couldn't be here without a God, that is the designer of our physical universe

Evolution is a theory in the same way that the Earth being larger than the moon is theory.

It cannot be called fact, only because it cannot be empirically tested. Since Darwin came up with the theory it has been rigourously challenged and tested. Nothing to date has disproven it, and fossil records and more importantly genome science have all but proven it fact.

We see the same sequences in trees, apes, pigs, flowers as we do in humans. We (all living life) are related and come from the same origins.

You can stick your head in the sand, but it's pretty dark down there.

You should read Richard Dawkins excellent "The greatest show on Earth" for an eye opener.

By the way, evolution says absolutely NOTHING about how life started,

You can believe in Evolution (by means of natural selection) AND believe in a god. They are not mutually exclusive.

'They are not mutually Exclusive' - great line.

Funnily enough this makes good sense. Is Evolution a detailed view of creation.

The orders the same from bacteria to man.

Time scale being the real difference between the two.

But the big bang theory is as 'religious' as the 'God's creation' theory.

Let there be light....

Question is what was there the second before the big bang.

If the universe is expanding, what's it expanding into. And at the end of it all what will be left?

Interesting points.

The big bang theory is just a scientific concept. There is a lot of disagreement about this, and righteously so. Maybe the big bang theory is totally wrong, fine. We are not afraid to be wrong, we just learn more and more, and try to find what actually happened.

"What was there the second before the big bang". Without getting too much into detail, this is a quite irrelevent question, as time is a property of this universe. There is no definition of time without this universe. It is analogous to asking what lies south of the south pole, it's undefined.

The same goes for what is the universe expanding into. Also, without too much detail, the concept of space is also a property of this universe. It does not mean anything to talk about what space this universe lies in. There probably is no concept of space outside this universe. This makes is also totally practically irrelevant, both space outside this universe, and seconds before the big bang. Because, both the answers to these questions cannot possibly influence anything inside this universe. The system of differential equations that defines the dynamics of this universe are solely dependent on the properties of this universe (assuming that it acts like a system, there has never been any evidence, not ANY evidence, that the universe does not abide consistency).

Wow..... You cannot ignore the second before the 'big bang' for there lies all the answers nor can you ignore what the universe is expanding into.

Suppose it's finite!

Lol.... No let's stop....

What we need to do is invent a new god. One that knows about evolution and cosmology. Then, job done. We can stop trying to find out what really happened, just like the religious people do.

 

[Vladimir]

Or improve the educational system. Which one is cheaper?

 

[TrevC]

Or improve the educational system. Which one is cheaper?

As mine was sarcasm, that is the only way. The removal of the nonsense that is religious faith from state schools would be a great step forward.

 

[lindsayt]

...Yeah, and I bet their owners have no sense of humour.

What's with the hugely insulting and totally wide of the mark ad hominem?

And the completely off-topic rant about Patricians? There's nothing to stop you starting a new thread where you can talk about speaker styling and model names as much as you want.

Haven’t you just proved my point?

The thing is, you’re pretty disdainful about most of the choices people on this forum make -- most modern speakers are rubbish; buying new from a shop is a waste of money; a DD turntable is the only proper hi-fi source: OK, I’m exaggerating, but not by much.

Then when someone makes a criticism of your choices (e.g. my entirely uncontroversial comment about euphonic distortion), you get defensive.

That was the point of my obviously OTT rant about your speakers. Though in fairness, I did perhaps overdo it a smidge. Still, it was fun.

More insulting ad hominem.

What sort of game is this that you are playing?

You wrote a completely off topic rant about Patrician speakers, ending in an insulting ad hominem comment about me. Then you delete it when I asked you why you were doing it.

Then you make your post that I've quoted above.

How else am I to respond to personal insults on this forum? Am I supposed to say nothing and let your insults stand? Am I supposed to say "Ha ha, well said Matt, it's true that I do have no sense of humour whatsoever?" Or do you think it's best that I simply say words to the effect: "I find that insulting. Stop it!"

Your comments about my views on: modern speakers, dealers, DD turntables are off topic. If you disagree with my views on any of these, I think it would be better if you did it in the actual threads where I have discussed these matters.

As for euphonic distortion, so far neither you nor anyone else has given any subjective nor objective evidence that I prefer my 2 watt amplifier over my 300 watt with my speakers because of euphonic distortion. I think it's entirely valid of me to question on what basis you are making this euphonic distortion assertion, when what you are saying entirely contradicts my subjective listening experience with my amps and my speakers.

I believe that you know that I have an open house policy, in that anyone on this forum is welcome to visit me, and to bring whatever measuring equipment or alternative equipment or systems that they want so that they can make up their own minds as to whether anything I say on this forum has any merit or not. During such a visit, you could also bring a Sense of Humour meter to detect whether I have any or not. Personally I don't care if I do or I don't. I am what I am.

But at least I do try to avoid making personal insults and using ad hominem when debating with someone on an online forum.

 

[SteveR750]

I would disagree, it would be fine. Music only requires intermittent high power, not continuous.

Then why, if that power is sufficient, do not mainstream amplifiers, that typically have power supplies in the range I mention, fail to double their power into lower impedance loads? Or does that not matter on "music".

I am left wondering why Roksan would bother to fit a 700va supply into Vlad's K2 amplifier or why Per Abrahamsen would fit an expensive 1000va Noratel transformer into iO's new V20 amplifier.

Dave, good post, I was thinking exacty the same.

Trev, it's lot more quantitative than simply doubling the power. Most cheap amps cannot do that by the way, and very few at any price actually double, good ones come close. What about rise time? Slew rate? You've positioned yourself as the black and white engineer, so you need to describe "good" with numbers.

I already told you, electronics is cheap. There's no reason to think that an expensive amplifier will be better than an inexpensive one at reproducing a square wave if everything else is as good. I think it's you that thinks in black and white.

You can do better than that. My question was how (other than simply buying good quality components) do you make a cheap amp sound like an expensive amp (assuming no differences in profit margin, and component prices and assembly costs the same). I'm not the electrical engineer, though in my experience black and white is a pretty good pallete for good engineers to work with: we're beyond subjective analysis, I'm intrigued how you judge a good amp (if listening to it is not sufficiently accurate).

It's my contention that the fancy case is all that distinguishes a decent low price amp from an expensive job. The Behringer A500 is an excellent example. With its beefy toroidal transformer and quality parts, you could stick it in a posh frock and sell it for far more.

That's just a power amp. What about the other half (of design and price). Despite the meagre specs on their website, if it's as good as alleged, it's a semi pro studio product. There is perhaps a similar take it or leave it stance much like ATC speakers, and most domestic manufacturers are positioned a significant distance away from the studio monitor label.

So, you've found one cheap amp that potentially punches above its price point. I doubt anything from the mainstream budget manufacturers come close to it, so where else are all these great cheap amps that void all the expensive stuff? Let's define cheap by the way as sub £500

 

[TrevC]

That's just a power amp. What about the other half (of design and price). Despite the meagre specs on their website, if it's as good as alleged, it's a semi pro studio product. There is perhaps a similar take it or leave it stance much like ATC speakers, and most domestic manufacturers are positioned a significant distance away from the studio monitor label.

So, you've found one cheap amp that potentially punches above its price point. I doubt anything from the mainstream budget manufacturers come close to it, so where else are all these great cheap amps that void all the expensive stuff? Let's define cheap by the way as sub £500

Like I said, electronics is cheap. The price charged by boutique manufacturers is more about whether it looks nice enough at the price point to sell in any numbers. The Behringer is mass produced using quality components but looks awful. Hide it away and put only a pre on display and you have a stonker at a bargain price. The BK amplifiers look good too. What reason do you have to assume that a mainstream budget amp couldn't match a more expensive one?

 

[Thompsonuxb]

That's just a power amp. What about the other half (of design and price). Despite the meagre specs on their website, if it's as good as alleged, it's a semi pro studio product. There is perhaps a similar take it or leave it stance much like ATC speakers, and most domestic manufacturers are positioned a significant distance away from the studio monitor label.

So, you've found one cheap amp that potentially punches above its price point. I doubt anything from the mainstream budget manufacturers come close to it, so where else are all these great cheap amps that void all the expensive stuff? Let's define cheap by the way as sub £500?

Like I said, electronics is cheap. The price charged by boutique manufacturers is more about whether it looks nice enough at the price point to sell in any numbers. The Behringer is mass produced using quality components but looks awful. Hide it away and put only a pre on display and you have a stonker at a bargain price. The BK amplifiers look good too. What reason do you have to assume that a mainstream budget amp couldn't match a more expensive one?

Why are you argueing a point its clear made no reasonable sense several pages ago.

Amps are built for purpose to spec which is why no sensible person would drive a pair of high performance speakers with a budget amp.

Some have even tried to spell it out for you and still you persist.

One amp does not fit all - 'electronics are cheap' 'made of the same components'

Seriously.....give it up. At least think about what you are arguing.

Would you use your as500 to drive a pair of 8ohm, 500watt speakers in a hall filled with people?

If not why not?

Stop being so dumb, these guys are actually being nice about it too.

 

[TrevC]

That's just a power amp. What about the other half (of design and price). Despite the meagre specs on their website, if it's as good as alleged, it's a semi pro studio product. There is perhaps a similar take it or leave it stance much like ATC speakers, and most domestic manufacturers are positioned a significant distance away from the studio monitor label.

So, you've found one cheap amp that potentially punches above its price point. I doubt anything from the mainstream budget manufacturers come close to it, so where else are all these great cheap amps that void all the expensive stuff? Let's define cheap by the way as sub £500

Like I said, electronics is cheap. The price charged by boutique manufacturers is more about whether it looks nice enough at the price point to sell in any numbers. The Behringer is mass produced using quality components but looks awful. Hide it away and put only a pre on display and you have a stonker at a bargain price. The BK amplifiers look good too. What reason do you have to assume that a mainstream budget amp couldn't match a more expensive one?

Why are you argueing a point its clear made no reasonable sense several pages ago.

Amps are built for purpose to spec which is why no sensible person would drive a pair of high performance speakers with a budget amp.

Some have even tried to spell it out for you and still you persist.

One amp does not fit all - 'electronics are cheap' 'made of the same components'

Seriously.....give it up. At least think about what you are arguing.

Would you use your as500 to drive a pair of 8ohm, 500watt speakers in a hall filled with people?

If not why not?

Stop being so dumb, these guys are actually being nice about it too.

You spectacularly miss the point. Have a little think. Nobody's talking about using underpowered amplifiers.

 

[FennerMachine]

Can any of you state/list a few amplifiers that you consider well designed?

Not necessarily perfect, but good enough that they can drive most domestic speakers to reasonable volumes with low distortion? Take it they don't have to deal with extremes.

 

[SteveR750]

Like I said, electronics is cheap. The price charged by boutique manufacturers is more about whether it looks nice enough at the price point to sell in any numbers. The Behringer is mass produced using quality components but looks awful. Hide it away and put only a pre on display and you have a stonker at a bargain price. The BK amplifiers look good too. What reason do you have to assume that a mainstream budget amp couldn't match a more expensive one?

Electronic components might be cheap, but design, development and testing isn't.

Because they don't sound as good, especially with better quality speakers. because their ability to drive a more difficult load at high levels is limited. Power output doubling into halving the load impedance might be a good guide of its quality, but there is a lot more quantifiable measurement that will distinguish a good amp from an average of poor one; my question is what? No one seems to to be able to answer it (from the camp that assumes there is no sonic differences) other than restating a good design is all that matters, which somewho doesn't cost much.

In any case, like most subjective topics for which there is no requirement for a yes or no result, it's all pointless anyway, unless you're an amp designer / manufacturer / retailer. Those of us that believe we can distinguish them sonically will continue to do so, those that don't wont. This thread has run its course. Next!

 

[SteveR750]

Can any of you state/list a few amplifiers that you consider well designed?

Not necessarily perfect, but good enough that they can drive most domestic speakers to reasonable volumes with low distortion? Take it they don't have to deal with extremes.

Yes, all of us have that in our systems, some listed in signatures. Not many would buy something they thought was inferior. It's not about "considered" good, it's defining measurable good, otherwise we're still in the unreliable subjective opinion.

 

[TrevC]

Like I said, electronics is cheap. The price charged by boutique manufacturers is more about whether it looks nice enough at the price point to sell in any numbers. The Behringer is mass produced using quality components but looks awful. Hide it away and put only a pre on display and you have a stonker at a bargain price. The BK amplifiers look good too. What reason do you have to assume that a mainstream budget amp couldn't match a more expensive one?

Electronic components might be cheap, but design, development and testing isn't.

Because they don't sound as good, especially with better quality speakers. because their ability to drive a more difficult load at high levels is limited. Power output doubling into halving the load impedance might be a good guide of its quality, but there is a lot more quantifiable measurement that will distinguish a good amp from an average of poor one; my question is what? No one seems to to be able to answer it (from the camp that assumes there is no sonic differences) other than restating a good design is all that matters, which somewho doesn't cost much.

In any case, like most subjective topics for which there is no requirement for a yes or no result, it's all pointless anyway, unless you're an amp designer / manufacturer / retailer. Those of us that believe we can distinguish them sonically will continue to do so, those that don't wont. This thread has run its course. Next!

They don't sound as good? Have you ever heard the Behringer? These guys have.

http://matrixhifi.com/ENG_contenedor_ppec.htm