Understanding acclaim for certain amplifiers

[Broner]

@ ID, Steve_1979 & @drummerman: Thanks, for the informative replies. To continue, hearing about qualities of an amplifier, such as damping factor, distortion dynamic headroom, stability into lower loads, and the like, how can a potential buyer compare these aspects of the amplifiers and how should they value those differences? Are these factors all objective or should terminology such as ‘dynamic headroom’ and ‘stability into lower load’ be taken with a grain of salt? Isn’t there something like a 10-points checklist on the basis of which you should be able to compare amplifiers, and if so, to which degree does the information supplied by manufacturers give an indication?

Use you ears but I personally do take interest in what the designers/developers put into a product, be that design or parts and do read tests as the results often give an explanation on why something works the way it does.

Where it gets confusing is when two seemingly identical products produce completely different subjective results but then that is hifi for you. Some say amplifiers all sound the same.

regards

While I don't want to discard the value of listening, it would seem to me that the qualities of an electronic piece of equipment such as a television, computer or an amplifier should for a very significant part be explanable in an objective manner. But after the many interesting replies to this thread, I started looking at the specs sheets of both my NAD C356BEE and the Creek 50A, and even though I can say that I've learned a couple of things in this thread, I unfortunately haven't become much the wiser, if I was to make a choice between the two amplifiers. Can anyone at all objectively say which is better?

I reckon that listening is important but I cannot help to wonder whether that's because a lot of possibly objective comparable data simply isn't provided, or maybe simply because at some point, there really is little more that needs to be quantified with a figure.

 

[NHL]

WHF still haven't reviewed the 50A, have they?

 

[bigfish786]

@bigfish786 ‘Musicality’ is an extremely subjective criterion. How shiny an amplifier is, might have a big influence on one’s experience of it. My enquiry is therefore more directed as to what objective difference one can discern between two amplifiers to justify the differences in acclaim. I reckon that it’s about quality over quantity, but how does that translate in an objective way?

build quality, both internally and externally. sound quality and tonal quality, ability to project music, not just noise. Listening to different amplifiers will give you the choice of what you personally prefer.

if you are trying to find what it is that a reviewer of a product finds better or worse then you are more than likely wasting your time, as if you research product reviews, they can differ wildly. reviews can be used as a guide, to find products interesting enough to test, or purchase. but you have to be subjective, because everyones amp and speakers will sound different in some way in different surroundings.

myself, i enjoy what my music sounds like, but i also enjoy the upgrade path too. the upgrade path should be an enjoyable part of your musical journey, if you are not enjoying your musical experience, then something is wrong, and you can't buy what you need for that.

 

[Vladimir]

The Creek is the better amp and the NAD is the more powerfull amp. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

 

[unsleepable]

The Creek is the better amp and the NAD is the more powerfull amp. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

But this does not help to define why the Creek might be the better amplifier…

 

[Broner]

The Creek is the better amp and the NAD is the more powerfull amp. Those two things aren't mutually exclusive.

I don't think anyone said or even remotely suggested that those things are mutually exclusive, but as to why the Creek amp is better, I have yet to hear and understand why that is.

 

[Vladimir]

I spoke about why lower power amps with regulated power supplies and lower output impedance sound more agile than higher powered amps of standard type. The Creek is regulated, not fully but has main voltage rails covered and uses several caps in paralel to lower impedance and increase damping factor.

The NAD is 2x80WPC in 8 ohms, clips at 90WPC. The Creek is 2x55WPC in 8ohms and clips at 64WPC. Their difference in power is mere 26WPC.

 

[unsleepable]

Maybe we are ignoring the obvious, which is that Hi-Fi amplifiers do sound different.

For years I had used stuff from professional audio that one of my brothers did not have a use for anymore, and I had never given much thought to sound, further than quality of recording and reproduction. But the first time I went to an audition of Hi-Fi equipment, I was a bit shocked at how different everything sounded. And it wasn't only a matter of audio quality.

But after thinking about it, I felt even a bit stupid for being surprised… Or course amplifiers from different Hi-Fi vendors sound different. Their unique sound signatures is what we pay them so much money for. Furthermore, if they all sounded the same, and all the differences were those of power and quality, it would be very easy for a new vendor to come to the market and offer an amplifier with, let's say, more powerful bass, immediately acquiring a competitive advantage over all the other vendors towards those consumers that enjoy a powerful bass. It is clear this already happened, and for example Nad is one of the vendors that caters for this type of consumers. Those who swear that amplifiers sound the same lack, apart from good hearing, all commercial instinct. 😉

I also have the personal opinion that, as it happens with everything in which tastes matter, Hi-Fi sound signatures are subject to fashion. Many will argue that certain sound signatures are perennial—and I agree, but I'd say that is what happens when they transcend fashion and approach art.

On top of this, technology allows vendors to make better amplifiers and speakers, and also to bring to cheaper models what before was only possible in the more expensive ones.

As for Creek and Nad, I am not a big fan of the latest Nad models, and have never auditioned Creek—but will soon! But I'd agree that Creek seems to be in fashion now.

 

[drummerman]

You are starting to read more and more like a Roksan spokesman ... apart from the fact that the Caspian is less powerful then the K2 but higher up in the range ...

regards

Ahw, maybe that was not fair.

Apologies.

Happy Sunday everyone

Regards

 

[Broner]

I spoke about why lower power amps with regulated power supplies and lower output impedance sound more agile than higher powered amps of standard type. The Creek is regulated, not fully but has main voltage rails covered and uses several caps in paralel to lower impedance and increase damping factor.

The NAD is 2x80WPC in 8 ohms, clips at 90WPC. The Creek is 2x55WPC in 8ohms and clips at 64WPC. Their difference in power is mere 26WPC.

No offense, but you don't seem to compare the two amps fairly. For the Creek amp you seem to consider the perks, while the NAD is only considered in terms of wpch (ignoring e.g. what NAD calls 'powerdrive' which relies on a second high voltage rail).

 

[bigfish786]

i'm reading this thread with great interest, as i've only just changed my amplifier. going from Arcam to Leema. i had the Arcam for 6 years, and in that time it has impressed me no end, especially for entry level. i'm only on my second day of listening to the Leema, and the differences are quite big.the Arcam was a highly detailed amp, but didn't shout about it. the Leema kicks butt. a much more powerful sound. both have their qualities, both are very enjoyable to listen to. delivery is Different, Seeing as i like metal/rock the Leema is better at delivering the punch. but i would not be disappointed to go back to the Arcam, it is a really good little amp.

 

[Vladimir]

No offense, but you don't seem to compare the two amps fairly. For the Creek amp you seem to consider the perks, while the NAD is only considered in terms of wpch (ignoring e.g. what NAD calls 'powerdrive' which relies on a second high voltage rail).

Dang, I forgot about the powerdrive thingy.

 

[NHL]

How big would the difference be to move to Naim? Presentation only?

 

[Al ears]

No offense, but you don't seem to compare the two amps fairly. For the Creek amp you seem to consider the perks, while the NAD is only considered in terms of wpch (ignoring e.g. what NAD calls 'powerdrive' which relies on a second high voltage rail).

Dang, I forgot about the powerdrive thingy.

That's the thingy were it drives your speakers to 'clipping' and kills them. 🙂

 

[Vladimir]

Even if they are Linn Isobariks or Apogee Scintillas?

 

[davedotco]

Even if they are Linn Isobariks or Apogee Scintillas?

Interesting choice of speakers here.

The Kef based woofer in the 'bariks was easily popped when driven hard, I have had to replace dozens in my time as a dealer. Mostly the damage was done by the NAP250 though of couse the double bass driver configuration had more than enough power handling to handle the output from that amplifier.

Scintillas on the other hand were notorious amp breakers, there ludicrous low and highly reactive impedence would cause even behemoth Krell amplifiers trouble. They destroyed most amplifiers, even at quite modest levels.

So not very good examples there Vlad, bit of a 'fail' in fact. (we need a 'facepalm' emoticon for moments like this).

 

[Vladimir]

@Dave

I replied in the other topic so we don't off in this one. Sorry folks.

And here's the artwork you were going to pin me with.